Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-unix!husc6!seismo!mcnc!gatech!spaf
From: spaf@gatech.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.config,news.groups,comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Wanted: net.sources feed (comments -- long)
Message-ID: <15888@gatech.gatech.edu>
Date: Wed, 10-Jun-87 09:44:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: gatech.15888
Posted: Wed Jun 10 09:44:36 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jun-87 05:09:31 EDT
References: <934@maynard.BSW.COM>
Reply-To: spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford)
Distribution: world
Organization: Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech
Lines: 64
Xref: utgpu news.config:159 news.groups:910 comp.sources.d:760

In article <934@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) writes:
>Apparently a large subset of The Net still gets and forwards net.sources.
>Unfortunately, it appears that no one in New England does -- an informal
>survey has revealed no sites in New England that receive net.sources.

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.

Net.sources got moved into a moderated group because of continuing
complaints from lots of people about the non-sources postings to that
group, and the large number of postings of undocumented, uncommented
garbage code.  Not all of the postings were like that, but the number
of such postings was contstant as the volume increased. Three years of
pleading with people and trying to educate posters didn't help a bit,
and the volume only grew.  And grew.  The only approach available in
the current software was to make the group "semi-moderated" to try to
cut down on the cruft that caused the most complaints.  We did that.

Now, a month or so later, we hear from some people who want an
unmoderated sources group back.  Some still circulate net.sources.  One
group has formed an alternate backbone to distribute an "alt.sources".
One person is trying to do it the difficult way and form a mailing
list, although he's going to piss off a lot of system admins when
multiple copies of uncompressed source start passing through their
systems (and some are threatening to send him bills for comm time).

The fact that people are forming alternative groups is *wonderful*.
I'm serious about that.  It means they've decided there are groups they
want badly enough that they're willing to set up their own links (and
pay their own transfer costs), and they'll deal with future worries
about content and volume.  It means the net is more fragmented, but it
is also more likely to survive as the volume continues to grow.

Alternative sources groups (or alternative *anything* groups) have a
couple of major distinguishing features that some people seem to be
overlooking: 1) they don't reach everyone on the net, so they don't get
submissions from everywhere, so the volume is lower; 2) to get the
group you have to purposely seek it out, so you know ahead of time what
you're getting into; 3) you're consciously arranging the feed, so
you're spending your own money on the transfer.  As such, these groups
will be self-limiting.  As the volume and cost goes up, fewer sites
will be able to get them, and some current subscribers will drop out.
That will bring the costs and volume back down, and so on.

So, think a few moments before you complain about no moderated sources
groups.  Has the quality of your life and programming been degraded
over the last month or so without it?  Do you have the lingering
feeling that there is incredibly good code being posted to unmoderated
source groups and you're missing it all?  If so, consider one of the
following: 1) contact hoptoad!gnu about the "alt.sources" newsgroup and
how you'd go about setting up a link (you pay) to get it; 2) contact
the folks at UUNET to see if they're getting net.sources or alt.sources
-- they've indicated they'll carry *all* groups, but again, you pay.
3) think up a way we can have a netwide, unmoderated sources groups
that won't bury us alive in garbage.  Serious, workable suggestions
will get *close* attention -- the sources groups are not the only
places where this problem is occuring.
-- 
Gene Spafford
Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
Internet:	spaf@gatech.gatech.edu
uucp:	...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!spaf