Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!ig!uwmcsd1!marque!gryphon!richard
From: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Picture swap (was Re: clite demo)
Summary: mas ouci
Message-ID: <4398@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Date: 10 Jun 88 04:08:34 GMT
Reply-To: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton)
Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 30

In article <2267@antique.UUCP> vax135!cjp (Charles Poirier) writes:
>In article <4380@killer.UUCP> woodsb@killer.UUCP (Brent L. Woods) writes:
>>In article <5269@dayton.UUCP> joe@dayton.UUCP (Joseph P. Larson) writes:
>>>
>>>the moderators would like to post them to .binaries?
>>
>>We came to the conclusion that, yes, we would be willing to
>>post picture files ... , but we couldn't justify archive space for them.
>
>Hi, it's me, being negative again.  Pictures are not worth archiving at
>even the one site that people count on for archives, but they *are*
>worth spending several hundred hours of Usenet phone time per picture
>to transmit around the world?  (And they're not even naughty?  :-))  Oh
>my aching backbone!

I've gotta agree with Charles on this one. As much as I like to see the
free flow of free information, the volume volume volume we are talking
about here is staggering.

Put them on a commercial network where you get some idea of the real cost.

Become the "Fred Fish of pictures". Become a central distribution
point; distribute to user groups. But flood the net with those
puppies and even telebits wont save us.

(I have about 30+ picture disks, whats that, 25 megabytes. Sheesh.)


-- 
                "Live by the lawn dart, die by the lawn dart."
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM           {decwrl!mejac, rutgers!marque}!gryphon!richard