The monthly posting poster speaks

[Scott Hazen Mueller]

I remember the last time this came around in a big way, two and a half years
ago.  Kathy Vincent was still active, and I was a big-mouthed newbie system
administrator.  We held exactly the same discussion then, and I couldn't even
tell you now which side I was on.

Let me touch on a little history, and perhaps answer some questions along
the way.

John Ruckstuhl:

>Some will argue that "no one can have real troubles getting unix-pc if they
>make just a small effort".  Likely, several people will generously offer a
>feed of the unix-pc newsgroups, or suggest ways to gain access - perhaps
>via the digest that Scott Hazen Mueller kindly mails.

I won't argue with all of the trouble that you had; I know some small part of
it just from trying to get the digest to you.

The digest was an offshoot of the last major unix-pc vs. comp.sys.att.unix-pc
discussion that I mentioned above.  At the time, I was favoring merging
unix-pc.general with comp.sys.att (it's starting to all come back now), and
was arguing with Kathy Vincent over the value of doing so.  The discussion
turned to 'gatewaying' unix-pc into comp.sys.att, and perhaps creating a
back gateway as well.  In order to see if the idea was worthwhile, I started
the digest, to give increased access to unix-pc.*, and to see if there was
enough demand for unix-pc.* from the rest of the net.

Paul Kirkaas:

>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.

To clear up some confusion:  Paul is clearly (to my mind) paraphrasing some
private correspondence that he and I had with regard to unix-pc.sources.
When I started the digest, I considered the question of including
unix-pc.sources, and concluded that it would not work well.  I still hold that
opinion; at 44 addresses currently on the list, a 'typical' four-part posting
of about 50k per piece would generate 4.4M of outbound mail traffic from here,
and that's assuming that my mailer actually managed to send only one copy for
every two addresses.  The typical case would be somewhat worse...

Paul continues:

>Why not just move the whole unix-pc tree under comp.sys.unix-pc, which is
>clearly where it belonged in the first place?

I'd argue with that 'clearly'.  Had it truly been so cut-and-dried, unix-pc
would never have started out as the first alternate hierarchy.

There are advantages to the status quo.  Unix-pc.* is a fairly tightly
focused network, with the exception of the periodic postings of 'how do I get
Unix for my PC?'.  Because of the non-Usenet nature of unix-pc.*, people are
sometimes a little friendlier, a touch more easy-going about making links.
Many sites will set up a low-volume link for unix-pc.* that would not have
made the connection for either mail or a full newsfeed, in my experience.

With regard to moving unix-pc.*, the net was a different world even just a
couple of years back, and we would not have been able to merge cleanly with
the Usenet; at the time of the last discussion, there was no question but
that unix-pc.* would have to be merged with comp.sys.att.  Now, it is a
different story; there is no official backbone, and everything in the Usenet
takes a vote.

Could we get one-hundred-plus voters in favor of this issue, and do we really
want to?  Given that we could, unix-pc.* could well form its own subtree
somewhere under comp.sys.  I have no special wisdom on how well or poorly
supported such a move would be - while I believe that somewhere between eighty
and one hundred people have subscribed to the digest, I would hardly claim
them as a deliverable constituency, a group that I could get to vote en bloc
in favor of a merge proposal.

Back when I started doing my mailings, I had the notion in mind that I would
track subscriptions, and use that information to justify moving unix-pc.*
into comp.sys.att.  After a couple of years of doing it, I no longer feel
that it is a major issue.  The information is available, though admittedly it
is not always available for free, unlike the Usenet often seems to be.  But
then, one of the basic precepts of the unix-pc.* net, and of Usenet in
general, is that after a while you should start to pay your own way.  Giving
unix-pc.* a free ride with the comp.sys.att may seem attractive, but is it
really worth the cost?

As long as unix-pc.* is a distinct hierarchy, we remain in some sense in
control of our own fates.  If the NSF pulled the plug on Netnews on the
Internet (no more NNTP), we would still go on.  Sites like Zorch and Ditka,
Galaxia and Hico2, Icus, Pacbell, Ames, and so on, are tied together because
*we* want to spend our time, and our phone dollars, sending unix-pc.* across
the country.  Isn't that worth something?  If we were part of comp.sys, sure,
I could stop sending digests, but we'd also be at the mercy of the Usenet
public in general.

Unix-pc:  Let it be.

Thank you for your time.

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller | scott at zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!scott
10122 Amador Oak Ct.| +1 408 253 6767   |Mail fusion-request at zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
Cupertino, CA  95014|Love make, not more|for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests
SF-Bay Public-Access Unix 408-996-7358/61/78/86 login newuser password public