Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!mcdchg!nud!noao!arizona!gudeman
From: gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: bin.net
Message-ID: <6079@megaron.arizona.edu>
Date: 2 Jul 88 07:04:03 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
Lines: 49

In article  <230@pigs.UUCP> haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) writes:
>In article <6062@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>>What's the point of this bin.net?  Being of a suspicious nature, I
>>have this nagging suspicion that the intent is to give binaries an
>>alternate group, so the anti-binaries types can say "Well, gee, since
>>binaries have their own net, we shouldn't carry them here."

I should have explained better.  It seemed to me that the person who
was starting this bin.net had earlier supported removing binaries from
the network.  I wasn't sure about this, so I posted what I thought was
a mild inquiry.  I honestly don't see any need for net.binaries,
though I'm really not concerned one way or the other.  I was curious.

>yes, mr. gudeman, you guessed correctly.  sometime after i finish
>this article i am going to go into news.groups and request an rmgroup
>(or, rather, request a `vote') to dispose of this little newsgroup of
>yours.

Hmm.  Is that sarcasm?  I honestly can't tell, given all the
unwaranted hostility that the binaries groups seem to generate.  Also,
calling the group mine is a little silly, since I have never posted
anything to it.  It amuses me that I seem to have become the Great
Defender of binaries groups, since I only read one, and wouldn't even
be too put out if that one disapeared.

My infamous defense of binaries was not prompted by fear that binaries
would disapear, but by (1) the misinformation in the article I
responded to, and (2) the insufferable arrogance of someone trying to
tell the rest of us what is worth posting.

>but you are more than free to take a bin.net feed from anyone who
>can afford the expense of carrying one themselves.  of course, the
>net won't be `free' anymore.  what a shame.

Yes, that would be a shame.  Next we should rm social groups, because
they don't add anything productive, then we should rm sources.games
for the same reason.  Then we should make a careful analysis of the
remaining groups, and those that don't carry at least 50% original
research should be rm'ed.  It leaves a pretty bleak network, but very
low-cost.

If the backbone sites stop carrying binaries, I would be mildly
disapointed, but would still be grateful for those groups they
continue to carry.  I've noticed a lot of people flaming the backbone
for various slights, and always thought they were ingrates.  It's like
someone gave you a gift, and you gripe that it's not the more
expensive one you were expecting.  What bothers me is when some
uninvolved authoritarian tries to tell the gift-giver what is an
"appropriate" gift.