Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6972 comp.sys.att:11298
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!fernwood!portal!cup.portal.com!thad
From: thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: unix-pc.groups
Message-ID: <37303@cup.portal.com>
Date: 28 Dec 90 01:25:51 GMT
References: <1990Dec27.214341.21316@kodak.kodak.com>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 44

crassi@kodak.kodak.com (Charlie Crassi)
in <1990Dec27.214341.21316@kodak.kodak.com> writes:

	I am in favor of keeping the unix-pc groups just as they are.

	As the usenet docs indicate, unix-pc is one of the alternate
	groups outside of the main stream. I agree with the man from
	Toronto, if it works, leave it alone. This one works so ......
	leave it alone.

But the present distribution does NOT work as well as it should, and most
definitely not outside North America.

I'd be happy to post many emails I've received recently from people who
originally felt as you do until they realized they were only getting about
50% of the postings they should have been receiving, esp. when they were
only getting, for example, some of the "Re: ..." followups and NOT the
original postings.

It just doesn't appear to be a problem until you realize you're NOT getting
all the stuff; a "mainstream" group (such as a "comp.sys.3b1") wouldn't have
the (potential) distribution problems that unix-pc.* does have.

I've checked 4 sites here in Silicon Valley and the material appearing on
those 4 sites is only about 85%-90% in common (re: unix-pc.*); in other words,
in a 15-mile radius centered on the "hotbed" of Usenet activity there is a
distribution problem with unix-pc.*.  Checking the comp.* groups at those same
4 sites reveals no such problem (at least among the groups I checked).

Note that I've cross-posted this to comp.sys.att just so that it WILL appear
at one of those 4 sites (H-P Labs, Palo Alto; yeah, I check there frequently).

Without connectivity, the group will die.  Not one person has detailed any
problems with a 3B1 group being in the mainstream.  Many "mainstream" comp.*
groups have less traffic than the present unix-pc.*, but because they are
"mainstream" they're better distributed.

The only real arguments to date concerned the NAME of the proposed group, and
that issue is presently being voted.

Hmmm, if you've already voted, I don't know what the net policies are
concerning amending one's vote (if you should change your mind).

Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]