Xref: utzoo news.groups:2774 comp.sys.mac:13601 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!hao!ames!oliveb!felix!dhw68k!bytebug From: bytebug@dhw68k.cts.com (Roger L. Long) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: comments on binaries Message-ID: <5652@dhw68k.cts.com> Date: 6 Mar 88 17:56:29 GMT References: <458@stech.UUCP> <717@gethen.UUCP> <43688@sun.uucp> <1036@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Wolfskill residence; Anaheim, CA (USA) Lines: 109 In article <43688@sun.uucp> Chuq Von Rospach (chuq) writes: > o as many people read the network for Macintosh stuff as for > Unix stuff. This implies (and I've said this before, and I'll say > it again) that this is no longer a Unix Network, but a Network > hosted on Unix machines. A very important semantical difference > that people need to keep in mind when they look at the future of > the net. It isn't Unix First anymore. In article <1036@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> Gordon E. Banks (geb) writes: >I would like to see stats on the volume of unix-related sources and >mac binaries. When I was reading them, it seemed like people were >pouring reams of unmoderated stuff at the net in unix sources. >Mac binaries get a piddling two (parts of programs) per day. I agree that >sources are superior to binaries, but I still think we are being gypped. >Our host is still unix, but we all have macs. Well, with the arbitron stats just published, let's see: 6 24000 2165 98% 48 1217.8 2 0.36 11.3% comp.sources.misc 11 21000 1866 99% 88 157.2 4 0.05 9.8% comp.sources.d 18 19000 1640 99% 320 310.9 16 0.12 8.6% comp.sources.wanted 19 18000 1600 98% 74 3721.2 4 1.40 8.4% comp.sources.games 20 17000 1506 98% 74 455.7 4 0.19 7.9% comp.sources.bugs 23 16000 1381 98% 8 247.7 0 0.11 7.2% comp.sources.unix 30 14000 1211 66% 27 521.6 1 0.18 6.3% alt.sources 145 6100 538 95% 15 563.1 2 0.63 2.8% comp.sources.amiga 153 5700 501 97% 4 148.3 0 0.18 2.6% comp.sources.mac 262 2100 182 13% 52 132.1 25 0.06 1.0% comp.sources.games.bugs For a total of almost 7.5 megabytes of sources. (but note that comp.sources.unix's volume is way down, so there probably was an interruption during February, since I now find about 1.5MB in the spool directory here) For binaries, we find: 24 15000 1330 95% 170 3289.9 11 1.50 7.0% comp.binaries.ibm.pc 58 10000 930 97% 58 1630.6 5 1.10 4.9% comp.binaries.mac 162 5300 468 95% 24 1009.3 4 1.30 2.5% comp.binaries.amiga For a total of almost 6 megabytes of binaries. (also note that the volume of comp.binaries.mac is a little low, given that I was without a machine to post from for a couple of weeks.) Also from Brian's numbers, we find that 102.4 megabytes of news went through his site during February! 102399.2 Thus, about 1.6% of the net bandwidth (probably closer to 2% normally) went for Mac binaries during February (which benefited about 5% of the people who read news). In terms of volume, comp.binaries.mac was 13th in Brian's Top 40 by Volume. Overall, about 5.8% of the net bandwidth went to binaries, and about 7.3% of the bandwidth went to sources. Aren't numbers fun? Let's look at something else: all of the Mac groups 10 21000 1903 98% 1715 2613.6 81 0.87 10.0% comp.sys.mac 58 10000 930 97% 58 1630.6 5 1.10 4.9% comp.binaries.mac 107 8000 708 86% 87 150.9 10 0.12 3.7% comp.sys.mac.hypercard 123 6900 610 97% 12 317.6 1 0.32 3.2% comp.sys.mac.digest 153 5700 501 97% 4 148.3 0 0.18 2.6% comp.sources.mac 299 620 55 3% 8 8.7 13 0.00 0.3% comp.sys.mac.programmer take up nearly 5 megabytes for about 4.8% of the total net bandwidth. Getting back to the subject at hand, here are my thoughts. - Are binaries useful to a significant enough portion of the net to justify the bandwidth they take up? Yes, but at 6% of the bandwidth currently, I think that's about as much as the net can take. - Does the net (and Mac users in particular) need comp.binaries.mac.hypercard? Not really, without justifying the significant portion of net bandwidth that such a group would encourage. I think that comp.binaries.mac is still able to deal with ALL Macintosh binaries, and is a good means of limiting volume to an acceptable level. Above anything else, I think that's the job of binary group moderation: to moderate the volume. In the time that I've spent as comp.binaries.mac moderator, I've rejected very little (mostly the "I missed part 3" type postings). - Still with the hugh backlog in comp.binaries.mac, and the large nature of hypercard binaries, doesn't comp.binaries.mac.hypercard make sense? To me? No. The 15 part Esperanto posting was the largest thing that I've posted, but I felt was worth it as a good example of what Hypercard can do. Yes, people who weren't interested in Hypercard or Esperanto had to wait for 15 parts to be posted, in the same way that people who didn't have Lightspeed C had to wait when updates for that were posted, or people who had no interest in games have to wait when those are posted. There is no guarantee that everything posted will appeal to everyone. And I think that comp.binaries.mac is well rounded enough to have something for everyone. Yes, there is quite a backlog, but the backlog I think has worked to the advantage of the net in a number of ways. Knowing of the backlog and that they won't see their postings right away has effectively self-moderated a lot of what people might have posted to the net. Very little has been posted of a "trivial" nature. Also, I've been able to avoid the need to post multiple versions, when an author informs me that he's found a bug and could I hold off posting something until he fixes it. Thus, I would urge that we hold off from creating a Hypercard binaries group. -- Roger L. Long dhw68k!bytebug