Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!uflorida!usfvax2!jc3b21!fgd3
From: fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: comp.binaries.amiga (was Re: Picture swap)
Message-ID: <417@jc3b21.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jun 88 03:49:10 GMT
References: <8806161902.AA16559@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: St. Petersburg Jr. College, FL
Lines: 31

In article <8806161902.AA16559@cory.Berkeley.EDU>, dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes:
> 	I would definately disagree with your opinion.  Very few USENET
> readers have compilers on their Amigas.  It's just that those who do are 
> usually the most active people on the net.

     Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.  I don't have an opinion about
the ratio of programmers to non-programmers in Usenet.  I was merely
calling attention to the fact that that ratio is an important consideration
in determining whether the benefits of a binaries group outweigh the costs.
What I've seen locally is Usenet readers who are programmers compiling
programs and uploading them to local bulletin boards.  

     If, in fact, most Usenet readers don't have compilers it is clearly
worth keeping the binaries group.  But unless we know for sure which is the
case we can't make a correct decision.

     It is because Usenet is a unique and valuable resource that we are
concerned with how much traffic it carries.  It makes sense to reduce that 
traffic considerably by eliminating a newsgroup that serves a few people.
But it doesn't make sense to eliminate a group that has a large following.

     So the question is, do you know for a fact that "very few USENET
readers have compilers on their Amigas"?  Or is that just an impression you
have?

--Fabbian Dufoe
  350 Ling-A-Mor Terrace South
  St. Petersburg, Florida  33705
  813-823-2350

UUCP: ...gatech!codas!usfvax2!jc3b21!fgd3