moving unix-pc.all to comp.sys.something (was: Re: Monthly posting about Unix-PC network)

[David S. Herron]

In article <1990Nov3.045636.12735 at cs.ucla.edu> kirkaas at makaha.cs.ucla.edu (paul kirkaas) writes:
>In article <1990Nov1.080516.14051 at zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> unix-pc-request at zorch.SF-Bay.ORG writes:
>-According to the monthly information postings from Gene Spafford, there is
...
>-<Unix-PC
>-
>-<Another such hierarchy is the "unix-pc" distribution.  This consists of
...
>-<  To receive
>-<them, you need to contact a site already getting them; att, gatech,
>-<mit-eddie, psuvax1, ucsd and ukma 
>
>Well, this is a nice idea, but the only group I am really exited about here
>is unix-pc.sources --- and that's the group I was told was too big
>to forward via email.  UCLA is a pretty big school and we get all the
>newsgroups I've ever heard of; but the local net administration looked
>into the unix-pc newsgroups and said it was pretty tough for them
>to get a feed here.

This is weird .. note that Spaf claims that `ucsd' carries unix-pc.all
and I'd assume that UCLA & UCSD were well connected to each other.  I
used to run the `ukma' listed above, and what Spaf said about passing this
along to any askers was true for me then.  I assume my replacements
are following a similar policy..

There should be no problem with getting unix-pc.all anywhere.  unix-pc.all
has been around for years and hasn't been hidden away anywhere.

People in the past have been resistant to moving unix-pc.all to
anywhere else because then they'd "have to get the rest of Usenet".
Now, that isn't *quite* true -- a news subscription *can* quite
easily be restricted to just "comp.sys.att.unix-pc" (which would be
the appropriate name for the group, BTW) with a few magic incantations
into the neighbors' sys file.

I see little reason to move unix-pc.all.

It would increase the propogation of the newsgroups .. that is if the
effect I saw when alt.sca moved to rec.org.sca holds true.  With rec.org.sca
there were lots of places which simply did not get alt.all at all simply
because of all the stupidness that goes on over there.  And so we were
losing lots of potential readers because of that.

The question comes up:  is the current unix-pc.all reaching all the
interested people?  If so then either we should make some effort to
reach those people and get 'em connected to unix-pc.all, --OR-- we
should move the groups.

I _think_ that unix-pc.all reaches many/most of the interested parties,
and that comp.sys.att covers the rest.  Of course I don't have any evidence
to back that up.  But the hierarchy has been around for many many years.
In fact I'm pretty sure it was the first `alternate' hierarchy to exist
outside the jurisdiction of the unOfficial Usenet Backbone.  It has
been widely available, etc etc etc etc ..

I find it hard to believe that anybody finds it `hard to get' even now.
It's a small hierarchy & wouldn't be much of a `strain' to administer ..

ohwell..

These are all my opinions .. perhaps I can be proved wrong?  Let's see...

Moving a newsgroup hierarchy is disruptive & it would be best if
that can be avoided.

-- 
<- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david at twg.com>
<- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david at ms.uky.edu>
<-
<- Use the force Wes!