use of net.sources (rebuttal of large postings flame)

[bill at persci.UUCP]

> I strongly suggest that we AVOID the use of net.sources (or new
> subgroups) for new, large software distributions.  Except for
> fairly small postings, net.sources is an EXTREMELY UN-economical
> way to distribute software.  Little programs are fine, but
> big source distributions never reach large portions of the network
> intact and result in endless repostings and lost money.  Instead
> of forcing the entire network to pay the charges for such postings,
> I suggest that people consider using the more traditional methods
> of sending tapes when distributions are more than a couple of 
> 100K, or using direct mail/FTP/kermit if practical.  But posting many
> hundreds of thousands of bytes to Usenet just DOESN'T WORK as
> a practical matter most of the time, and the amount of waste
> that results (in terms of transmission time, phone costs, etc.)
> is incredible.  It just results in more nails in the Usenet coffin.
> --Lauren--

I quite disagree. It's all fine and dandy for those with ARPA access to
smugly dictate that item x may be had by logging into some system and
transferring with 'ftp', but there are many of us out there who DON'T
have ARPA access. Frankly, one of the justifications my (for profit!)
employer has for supporting the net is the useful (and over 100K!) utilities
that are posted on it. If the only things passed over the net were the type
of blather I see in most newsgroups, we wouldn't bother!
Also, a lot of that software reaches companies that aren't even on the
usenet. My former employer is using LOADCONTROL, SCAME, and VC, all acquired
from other companies on the net. Software available 'by just sending a tape'
won't get distributed anywhere near as widely.
I am sure Lauren would not be so quick to condemn these postings if he didn't
have ARPA access. It's ALWAYS easier to deny the next guy something when you
don't have to give up anything at all!