Path: utzoo!utstat!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Time for 8 bit news, isn't it?????.
Message-ID: <15692@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Date: 23 Jul 90 06:55:12 GMT
References: <777@hades.ausonics.oz.au> <15688@bfmny0.BFM.COM> <1990Jul21.054016.10409@looking.on.ca>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Lines: 26

In article <1990Jul21.054016.10409@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>Why should binaries be split up into smaller bits, particularly bits as small
>As 50K?
>
>If I'm going to lose parts of a multi-part binary, I may as well lose the
>whole thing.

I agree completely.  Binaries shouldn't be split.  If a binary is bigger
than 50K, it has NO BUSINESS BEING BROADCAST AS NEWS!  Post a pointer
for FTP and anonymous UUCP, and let those who want it pay for it.
THAT'S how Usenet ought to work.  (This is not a flame at Brad of course
-- it's a flame at BBS refugees who discover Usenet and expect it to
work just like a bigger BBS.)

>I wrote the ABE/DABE system to make that easier to deal with, but even so,
>having to deal with missing parts and assembly, etc., is a pain.

In all fairness, when a properly packaged source archive (i.e., what
Usenet SHOULD be broadcasting) arrives in a dozen pieces, installation
is VERY easy on most platforms.  When a part is lost or corrupted, the
penalty for rebroadcast is a lot smaller than it would be if the whole
kit had to be resent.

-- 
"Take off your engineering hat   = "The filter has      | Tom Neff
and put on your management hat." = discreting sources." | tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM