Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!purdue!haven!uvaarpa!randall From: randall@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Randall Atkinson) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.binaries.os2 Message-ID: <1987@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> Date: 9 Jan 90 17:13:16 GMT References: <5942@ncar.ucar.edu> Reply-To: randall@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU (Randall Atkinson) Followup-To: news.groups Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville Lines: 27 In article emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: > >I am for this only if there in an anonymous FTP site associated >with the binaries group, on the principle that you shouldn't >be slinging binaries around to the world if you can avoid it. >An mail-based archive server should be attached to it too. > >I will vote NO if these two requirements are not met and will >encourage others to do likewise. The last thing we need is >a binaries group without a well-run archive site to back it up. I also believe that there should be an anonymous FTP site. It is something to be addressed once a suitable moderator is found. Even if there isn't one, the group should be created so that folks who don't want to carry binary traffic but do want to carry comp.os.os2 will be able to do so. The reason that comp.os.os2 has been so expensive of late is the high percentage of binary traffic. If it is separated, then people can at least have the ability to manage things according to the needs of that site. Not creating comp.binaries.os2 will not reduce the amount of binaries "slung around" it will only keep them in comp.os.os2 where they are already a problem. It still needs a moderator too.