Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!osborn
From: osborn@cs.utexas.edu (John Howard Osborn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: news reader --- more
Message-ID: <15422@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 4 Dec 90 17:00:16 GMT
References: <4198@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <337@heaven.woodside.ca.us>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 62

In article <337@heaven.woodside.ca.us> glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) writes:
>In article <4198@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> simsong@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Simson L. Garfinkel) writes:
>
>>So what's the word.  Can I post rich text?
>
>I think rich text is an excellent idea, but wait until lots of people have
>your mail reader before we start posting rich text, or nobody will like
>it.  You should certainly build in the capability, in my opinion.
>
>If worst comes to worst, we could start comp.sys.next.rtf to handle the
>specially formatted messages, but I don't think it would come to that.
>
>It would be great to have a way to include files in postings, too, so
>people could drag them out of news into their directory structure.

I'd like to explain why I think this is a really great idea that we
shouldn't do.

- It will require people to use your newsreader/poster.  There will probably
  be lots of people who want/need a feature that your newsreader doesn't
  provide and they'll be out in the cold.  (For example, note the abundance
  of plain-text newsreaders, nn, rn, vnews, readnews, gnu-news, and so on.
  Obviously, lots of people want lots of different features.)

- Moreover, people without NeXT systems are out in the cold.  I would wager
  that a great majority of comp.sys.next readers (including myself) don't
  yet own a NeXT or don't use it directly on the net.  I dial from home
  into my university's news machine, so I would be out in the cold.

- Any of the proposed workarounds to this problem are ugly.  Some of them
  require posting every message twice (RTF version, plain version) which is
  a really nasty waste of bandwidth.  At least one of those methods
  suggests posting a plain version at the top of a message and an RTF
  (or even tar'ed, compressed, uuencoded) section at the bottom.
  Nobody, not even me, wants to be forced to wait for a section of
  uuencoded data to start and then hit 'n' a hundred or so times a day.
  (And wait until comp.sys.next gets as big as comp.sys.mac before the split.)
  Moreover, the plain-text version of the message would lose information.

- Serious bandwidth considerations.  Until ISDN hits big, a VERY large
  percentage of the nodes out there feed through 1200 or 2400 baud modems.
  Even with a trailblazer bandwidth can be a problem.  When people start
  posting voice messages and application attachments the size of comp.sys.next
  would grow tremendously, making it difficult for those sites to carry.
  (Just wait for the digitized-audio .signature file.  Gads.)

- It is important for people without NeXT systems to read/write to
  comp.sys.next.  Admittedly, the number of "Should I buy a NeXTstation?"
  and "Does it run X?" questions could be reduced some, but valuable
  contributions are made by these people.  Besides, what if you wanted to
  read comp.sys.next before decided to purchase a machine?  What then?
  NeXT is out a sale, and you (as a possible developer) are out a possible
  sale, and the market for NeXT doesn't grow a little bit, as it should.

I still think the software should be written, because it would be really
great for internal (to a company, say) newsgroups and a really good
project, too.  But, it shouldn't be the primary method of using comp.sys.next.

-
-John H. Osborn
-osborn@cs.utexas.edu