Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!husc6!sri-unix!rutgers!ames!lll-tis!ptsfa!dsp
From: dsp@ptsfa.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.config,news.groups,comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Wanted: net.sources feed (comments -- long)
Message-ID: <3055@ptsfa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Jun-87 23:46:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: ptsfa.3055
Posted: Wed Jun 10 23:46:38 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Jun-87 03:37:19 EDT
References: <934@maynard.BSW.COM> <15888@gatech.gatech.edu>
Reply-To: dsp@ptsfa.UUCP (David St.Pierre)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Lines: 22
Xref: linus news.config:184 news.groups:944 comp.sources.d:768

In article <15888@gatech.gatech.edu> spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) writes:
>
>New England doesn't get it.  The southeast US doesn't get it.  All of
>Europe doesn't get it.  It doesn't go down under, either (Australia). I
>believe at least 80% of the "traditional" backbone sites don't carry
>it.  What's left may not really be a "large subset" of the net.

I'm curious - does this mean that New England didn't WANT net.sources?
Or the southeast? Or that 2-3 sites had so much leverage that they could
decide for the entire region?

I don't think that the point's worth debating much longer. As Brian Reid
mentions elsewhere, alt.sources will start taking it's place and time will
be the judge of whether an unmoderated sources newsgroup has any value.

Personally I thought that net.sources was getting to be a waste.
But I seem to remember that rn started out there, looking for testers.
And quite a few other programs before they became "archival" quality
for mod.sources.
-- 
David St. Pierre    415/823-6800  {ihnp4,lll-crg,ames,pyramid}!ptsfa!dsp
He would forget his head if it weren't screwed up.