Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!andante!mit-eddie!bu-cs!tower
From: tower@bu-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Re: Binary groups need their own hierarchy
Summary: NO! PC groups need their own heirarchies
Message-ID: <22773@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 21 May 88 02:08:07 GMT
References: <397@pan.UUCP> <5284@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Reply-To: tower@bu-it.bu.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Distributed Systems Group, Boston University, 111 Cummington Street, Boston, MA  02215, USA  +1 (617) 353-2780
Lines: 59
Posted: Fri May 20 22:08:07 1988
X-UUCP-Path: ..!harvard!bu-cs!tower
Xref: utzoo news.admin:2243 news.groups:3889
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!andante!mit-eddie!bu-cs!tower
From: tower@bu-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Re: Binary groups need their own hierarchy
Summary: NO! PC groups need their own heirarchies
Message-ID: <22773@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 21 May 88 02:08:07 GMT
References: <397@pan.UUCP> <5284@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Reply-To: tower@bu-it.bu.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Distributed Systems Group, Boston University, 111 Cummington Street, Boston, MA  02215, USA  +1 (617) 353-2780
Lines: 59
Posted: Fri May 20 22:08:07 1988

In article <5284@sdcrdcf.UUCP> faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel P Faigin) writes:
|In article <397@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes:
|>By putting binaries in their own hierarchy, bin.*, it would require specific
|>action to *receive* them, rather than to block them.
|
|I have also been thinking carefully about the binary problem, and
|have come to the same conclusion. If we were to put binaries in
|their own top level heirarchy, we would:
|
|1) Eliminate a lot of the clutter in the comp. heirarchy
|2) Allow easier segregation of binaries to those sites that wish
|   to carry them.
|3) Quite possibly, simplify archival and expiration.
|
|Think back as to why the net. heirarchy was originally split into
|comp., news., sci., misc., soc., and talk.. I think it may be
|time to split comp. into comp. for technical ascii discussions,
|and bin. for binaries.
|
|Daniel
|-- 
|W: UNiSYS/Defense Systems/System Development Group (nee SDC)
|   2400 Colorado Ave;Santa Monica CA 90406;213/829-7511x5162 (or 213/453-5162)
|H: 8333 Columbus Avenue #17; Sepulveda CA 91343
|Email: (uucp) faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (arpa) faigin@SM.UNISYS.COM

Binaries are only half the problem.

If USENET really decides to go through another renaming spasm, we
should let comp be devoted only to issues of general technical
interest.

newsgroups devoted to specific classes of machines should have their
own top-level newsclasses.  All PC's should be included.  I'm not sure
about mini-/main/super-computers.

This will allow those sites who care about the immense amount of
traffic about PC's to pay for it.  And more importantly, the sites who
don't want to carry it, can save some $$.

unix-pc.all has successfully showed the benefits of doing things this way.

Yes, there will be the stray postings to comp.sys.misc.  
But the comp.all volume will still drop a lot.

Yes, it isn't unfair if your USENET administrators decides they can't
foot the bill.  Go get a USENET feed for your PC or join the pay as
you go services like Compuserve, BIX, Delphi, or the Source.

I suggest for starters, the following top level classes with their own
backbones:

ibm-pc.all
mac.all
apple2.all
amiga.all
atari.all

enjoy -len