Xref: utzoo news.misc:1145 comp.sources.d:1691 news.groups:2216
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!reid
From: reid@decwrl.dec.com (Brian Reid)
Newsgroups: news.misc,comp.sources.d,news.groups
Subject: Re: why alt.sources? (Definitive answer, some history)
Message-ID: <246@bacchus.DEC.COM>
Date: 19 Jan 88 19:28:05 GMT
References: <171@sea375.UUCP> <1459@sigma.UUCP> <2989@arthur.cs.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: reid@decwrl.UUCP (Brian Reid)
Organization: DEC Western Research
Lines: 33

A "definitive answer" about alt.sources from one of the people who is most
annoyed by the existence of the alt groups amuses me.

The alt groups exist because the people who founded the alt net did not like
the increasing level of bureaucracy, centralization, and rule-making in the
mainstream USENET. So we created the alt subnet.

Alt.sources exists because a lot of people want it. There is no other reason.
It amuses me greatly that the existence of alt.sources annoys so many people,
but that is not its purpose.

For the record, here are the propagation statistics for the alt groups as of
this morning (I made a special mid-month run of arbitron just for this):

   74%  alt.gourmand
   69%  alt.sources
   57%  alt.config
   56%  alt.test
   54%  alt.cyberpunk
   53%  alt.flame
   51%  alt.drugs
   43%  alt.aquaria

In other words, alt.gourmand reaches about 3/4 of the net, and alt.sources
reaches a little more than 2/3 of the net.

To repeat, the ONLY reason that alt.sources exists is that people wanted it.
The alt groups do not need backbone approval or voting procedure in order to
exist. About 3/4 of the sites on USENET seem to agree that it is a good
thing. The joy of the alt groups is that if you don't want them, you don't
have to carry them, and nobody gets bent out of shape about it.

Brian Reid