Xref: utzoo news.groups:3862 comp.sys.cbm:1410
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!bowen
From: bowen@sunybcs.UUCP (Devon E Bowen)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.cbm
Subject: Re: comp.binaries.cbm: express your thoughts !
Keywords: cbm, C64, C128, binaries
Message-ID: <11346@sunybcs.UUCP>
Date: 19 May 88 18:23:56 GMT
References: <5355@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <5491@emcard.UUCP> <125@pigs.UUCP>
Reply-To: bowen@sunybcs.UUCP (Devon E Bowen)
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
Lines: 24

In article <125@pigs.UUCP> haugj@pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>NO!  C64 binaries are being sold in stores all around dallas for $'s
>and the transmission costs for binaries of any size are $,$$$'s.  this
>is getting to be more ridiculous than webber's eniac proposal.
>
>the net is undergoing expontential growth.  let's not contribute to
>that growth any further by adding binary groups for non-unix systems.
>call me an elitist if you wish.  it's getting to be a matter of
>survival.

I'm really not for binary newsgroups either. They cost far to much and
are far too limited in usefulness and I wouldn't be all that sad if all
the binary groups just disappeared. But, as long as we're going to have
them at all, I'll insist that we have one for cbm.

Most (all?) of the arguments against this proposal are arguments against
binary groups in general. I have not seen many with legitimate points
against this particular group. Until I see some, this group will get my
"yes" vote.


Devon Bowen			Packet:    KA2NRC@WA0PTV
University at Buffalo		BITNET:    bowen@sunybcs.BITNET
				Internet:  bowen@cs.Buffalo.EDU
UUCP: ...!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!bowen