Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:3254 comp.sys.att:6932 news.groups:10731 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!thad From: thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att,news.groups Subject: Re: Too much cross-posting? Message-ID: <20239@cup.portal.com> Date: 9 Jul 89 01:55:12 GMT References: <674@whizz.uucp> <240@gnosys.UUCP> <1989Jul7.052540.7258@eci386.uucp> Organization: The Portal System (TM) Lines: 77 In article: Subject: Re: Too much cross-posting? Message-ID: <1989Jul7.052540.7258@eci386.uucp> by: woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) He states: " I don't see how wider distribution of unix-pc stuff will help, when most of those who are interested already get the unix-pc groups, and those who don't should. It only serves to over-clutter comp.sys.att with a real mess of stuff which most comp.sys.att only readers don't want to see. (I read both groups!) Cross-posting *_IS_* inherently bad when it clutters up other groups. That's why we have groups in the first place. Perhaps unix-pc.general should be renamed comp.sys.att.unix-pc, but remain on the "alternate newsgroups" list. This might help prevent some of the useless clutter. PLEASE do not cross-post Unix PC related articles to comp.sys.att! " Bushwa! I'll say it again: BUSHWA! From a cursory examination of the comp.sys.att articles arriving here at PORTAL, it's clear that about 50% are related to the UNIXPC/3B1/7300, and the remaining 50% are divided between the 6300/6310/6312/6386 and the other 3B2 systems. Private email I've received clearly indicates that MOST of the people who NEED to receive the unix-pc.* groups are not receiving them, and they're extremely thankful FOR the cross-postings to comp.sys.att from unix-pc.* Three cases in point: 1) the WD2010 chip group buy I'm organizing. 85% of the responses arrived from people who ONLY saw it on comp.sys.att 2) Most (if not all) of Europe is NOT receiving unix-pc.*; my contact in Brussels writes that his receipt of unix-pc material is ONLY via the comp.sys.att newsgroup (ref. Jim Sanchez at Sytek). 3) Clearly 90% of the "Thanks!" email I received for my recent posting of the new s4diag UNIXPC diagnostics came from people who ONLY could get it from comp.sys.att. The volume of postings to BOTH comp.sys.att and the unix-pc.* groups do NOT warrant further discussion of restriction/polarization/etc; there simply aren't that many articles. I can store more than an average weeks' worth of postings to both groups on a single 5-1/4" floppy (400Kbytes). I personally prefer that all UNIXPC-related material be only in the unix-pc.* newsgroups, but the reality of the situation shows that MANY users would unduly suffer (by being left out) if we followed Greg A. Woods' suggestion. *MY* suggestion is that ALL unix-pc.* material be cross-posted to comp.sys.att and for people to fix their brain-damaged mail readers. Worst case is for someone to simply type an "n"; are the lazy readers out there THAT calorie conscious re: burning 1/2 calorie moving one's index finger? :-) Sheesh, are people that unable to cope with the vagaries of Usenet? We're NOT talking about cretin-JJ "Puh-LEEZE HELP ME!" postings; we're talking about postings and responses from people who have legitimate questions, concerns and answers about their computing investment. Lest we forget: the UNIXPC *IS* an AT&T product. Activity surrounding the UNIXPC has been growing by leaps and bounds during the past 18 months, far more so than with the 6300 family. As an elected officer of the Northern California AT&T Computer Users' Group, I *SEE* the evidence. The comp.sys.att newsgroup is for the benefit of ALL users/owners/operators of AT&T equipment, and the evidence I've seen is that over 85% of the UNIXPC owners/users are unable to receive the unix-pc.* newsgroups. And for those who don't know, there are four: unix-pc.general, unix-pc.sources, unix-pc.uucp, and unix-pc.bugs. Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]