Xref: utzoo news.admin:7635 news.groups:14648 comp.os.vms:19641 Path: utzoo!yunexus!ists!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!uunet!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!mccall!tp From: tp@mccall.uucp Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,comp.os.vms Subject: Re: New newsgroup hierarchy Message-ID: <1662.256451e0@mccall.uucp> Date: 17 Nov 89 18:45:52 GMT Article-I.D.: mccall.1662.256451e0 References: <1618.25614348@mccall.uucp> Organization: The McCall Pattern Co., Manhattan, KS, USA Lines: 65 In article , wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) writes: > why not create/use [List of substitutions deleted] > after thinking about it more, what really struck me as wrong is that > if every operating system/computer started its own hierarchy, this > would lead to very fragmented net. How bad is that? I carry a bunch of high volume mac groups that I don't need, just because it is easier. There are a few soc groups I'd like. My feed doesn't have the bandwidth to send me soc.* with all else he sends me. If I dropped the mac groups, could I pick up the others? How often do I want to balance such issues and how closely do I expect my feed to monitor his bandwidth? On the other hand !mac.all,!msdos.all,!amiga.all would work real well at this site (but not at others, and that is the point). We went from 1 hierarchy, to 2, to 7 plus alternates. What's the right number? I think an alternate hierarchy is the right way to go when you have a distinctly different audience. > i can see the point that _most_ sites would probably not need to carry > these vms groups, but _most_ sites probably would anyway. Looks that way, but it surprised me. I expected far fewer volunteers. I've worked on vms and unix, and the two camps don't seem to think much of each other. > if the goal > is to save bandwidth used by these groups, then it would probably be > better to continue to look at ways to automatically do this for all > groups. We want a VMS discussion forum. You want us to solve all usenet's problems first!!! :-) :-) :-) > i can also see that just creating a new hierarchy would be a _whole_ > lot easier than trying to run a half a dozen newsgroup votes. 1/2 :-> Not a small consideration, given the way most people on the net feel about VMS! 1/2 :-) Also, there are rules for creating groups and good reasons for the rules, but they would make it impossible for us to get the groups created, because there are few VMS user on the net right now, because the software is relatively new. There is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. 50% of the people we polled at a DECUS symposium like the idea of a network of VMS systems connected by uucp, but emphatically did not want on usenet. If you can't create vms groups without users, but the user's say the net doesn't serve their purposes because it has no vms groups, what have you got? > anyway, it's not that i am opposed to this new hierarchy, or that i > think that people shouldnt carry it, it's just that this seems to run > counter to the way usenet has been run in the past. most of the other > non-mainstream hierarchies are there because the _rules_ for carrying > them are different or because they are regional groups. Before there were any alternate hierarchies, people complained about the rules. They were told that if they didn't like it, they should create their own hierarchy and arrange their own distribution. That's what we've done. You may say that we used usenet's distributions. True. But everyone that is carrying the groups volunteered. They've in effect "joined vmsnet". -- Terry Poot (800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-3683 The McCall Pattern Company, 615 McCall Rd., Manhattan, KS 66502, USA UUCP: rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp Internet: tp%mccall@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu