Too much cross-posting?

[Bud Hovell]

In article <490 at manta.pha.pa.us> brant at manta.pha.pa.us (Brant Cheikes) writes:
>(as if the ability to do so were some kind of right).  The answer, says

No - it's a privilege. So is driving a car. If one were required to have
a chauffer's license with a motorcycle endorsement just to motor the ol'
chevvy down to get the groceries at the local store, some might hold that
to be an unwarranted restriction of a *privilege*. Add to that the further
license endorsement that some would like to see required for people to be
able to operate a vehicle on a freeway, and half the motoring public would
suffer terminal apoplexy - over the restriction of a *privilege*, not of a
*right*.

>Bud, is to merge unix-pc.all (in some form) into "mainstream Usenet."
<deleted>
>As far as I'm concerned, Bud has raised only one point worth
>considering: the present unix-pc distribution is not getting the kind
>of circulation it needs.  He rightly argues that (in this case) the
>value of the newsgroups increase in proportion to the size of their
>audience of unix-pc owners and users.  That much is beyond question.

And that is the central issue - where we seem to agree, though many do not.
(We may not agree on what is the "optimum" solution, but that's secondary).

>Most people also seem to agree that comp.sys.att is not the
>appropriate venue for unix-pc discussions.  The volume of unix-pc
>discussion demands a distinct group or set of groups.  Thus Bud's
>proposal.  I've already said that I think it's the wrong idea.

It may well be wrong, depending on the criteria one applies. Since there
is no agreement on criteria, agreement on what is "right" is not possible.

>Nevertheless, to Bud I say this: it's time to put your money where
>your mouth is.  Get this discussion out of these newsgroups and start
>the ball rolling with a newgroup proposal in news.groups.  If you
<deleted>

Based on what I have *now* seen, this would be pointless, since having
wider availability of the group through usenet distribution is clearly not
high on the list of most of its existing readership. 'Little disagreement
on that point, I'd say, based on the evidence at hand. :-)

>But now I'll tell you what I think the right solution is, why it's the
>right solution, and why it's already in place.
<deleted>
>news administrator to find a feed.  However, there are many people for
>whom neither option exists, practically speaking.  They may not have
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<deleted>

Exactly. And it is the practical effect that counts.

>For those folks, the solution is: join the unix-pc mailing list.
<deleted>
>Scott's machine.  The mailing list is the solution, and it's already
>operating.  All it could use is a little advertising.  Then we can put
>an end to all this cross-posting.

Nothing wrong with that solution, either, as long as the people who do
not now enjoy the benefit of these groups have reasonable access by *some*
means known to the outer world where they abide. Scott maintains, in a
seperate article, that he has had only 35 (was it?) people listed for
distribution by email. I suspect we could all agree that this is *not*
likely to be a major share of the people who would like to read this
group, but who do not receive it.

Whether advertising will overcome this barrier, I don't know - but it
might, and is certainly worth pursuing. Scott just mentions that he will
look into doing a routine posting to the net, and this may well do the
trick.

If the availability of the group (by whatever reasonable method) is kept
*visible to* and gives relatively *easy access for* new participants, then
that is the important thing.

>Sure, mailing lists are a bit more difficult to deal with than news
>groups (although the ARPAnet folks have been using them happily for
>years).  But they do work.  And I really do think it arrogant to expect
>that 10,000+ sites, most with little or no interest in unix-pc's, should
>spend THEIR money, time, and effort supporting OUR habits.

It would be arrogant if I had in any way suggested that every site in the
free world (or North America, or the USA, or Portland, OR) should be
carrying this group. I did not. I do not. The notion that it should be
carried over the net backbone (limited to 'na', perhaps) doesn't imply
that at all. As a percentage increase of the daily megadose of net news,
it would appear that the output of this group would be lost in the rounding.
Just as I suspect a number of *official* groups (might 'rec.music.gdead' be
an example?) get no more - and probably far less - active readership than
would this group if likewise carried on USENET.

Given the other "habits" already being lavishly indulged, I don't see
that unix-pc.* is less worthy than, say, 'talk.bizarre' or, perhaps,
'soc.culture.celtic'. (And before any self-righteous knights-errant leap on
their trusty chargers to defend a perceived assault on their castles, I am
*not* implying that these groups should be dropped!) What's the difference
that justifies expecting USENET to routinely carry *these* groups - but
*not* unix-pc.*?

Much of the "evidence" offered to explain this difference amounted to
assigning petty or base - possibly even [God forbid!] *venal* 8-O motives
to my raising the issue as I did. Lighten up, guys - all that excess bile
can rot your innards :-) :-)

Brant's (and some other) reasoned responses have been most refreshing, by
comparison. Thanks, Brant (and others), for your patience. I promise to
spare the bandwidth of any further discussion on this issue from this
quarter.

Gotta go now and get my flame-proof suit back into the cleaners again. '-)

-30-
 
                                 Bud Hovell

USENET: ...!{sun!nosun|tektronix!percival}!whizz!{bbh|postmaster|sysadmin}
USPO:   McCormick & Hovell, Inc., PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, OR  USA 97035
MOTD:   "Vote NO!"