Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:2152 news.admin:2259
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pwcmrd!skipnyc!atpal!tneff
From: tneff@atpal.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,news.admin
Subject: Re: binaries on the net
Summary: how about a size limit
Message-ID: <166@atpal.UUCP>
Date: 20 May 88 18:00:57 GMT
References: <1574@looking.UUCP> <22099@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <392@pan.UUCP> <53618@sun.uucp> <11662@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: tneff@atpal.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Organization: President's Council on Astrology
Lines: 44

You know, the more I listen to this...

I can definitely see Chuq's (and others') point.  Binaries have the
following problems: they are (often) HUGE and they are of only limited
net-wide interest.  Now comp.cog-eng is also of limited interest, but
it is not so HUGE so the net doesn't mind.

If we could eliminate the HUGE aspect of binaries, then, we could solve
some of the problem.  So how about a size limit of 64k or less?  This
would allow the posting of useful stuff in response to user inquiries,
e.g.,

     > How do I enlarge my PC keyboard buffer? I'm desperate...
     OK, here is a uuencode of KBDBIG.COM which will give you 128 bytes...
     =====> cut here <=====

     etc.

which I do feel is a legitimate function for usenet; but discourage
treating usenet like one supergiant BBS where everyone's 300K demos
are available for download.

This point probably needs to be made forcefully: PC users (at home or
work) with access to Usenet nearly always have access to regional
Bulletin Boards (BBS) as well, not to mention commercial services
like CompuServe and GEnie.  For only a few dollars in access time,
you can get anything you want from these places, and you can put your
own software in front of tens of thousands of PC owners.  DO IT!  Don't
impose on the hospitality of the backbone and thousands of other sites
trying to pervert usenet into Zoonet.  (No offense, Rahul - ARCnet is
already a trademark. <grin>)  

It may be that after all voices have been heard on this issue, binaries
will seem appropriate for the alt.* hierarchy or even a new bin.*
hierarchy as Jamie Watson suggests.  For selected sites it may make
real sense to integrate substantial PC binaries flow into the uucp
network.  But not for the net at large.

Comments invited, here or in the 'box.

-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...uunet!pwcmrd!skipnyc!atpal!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536		MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF		BIX: are you kidding?