From: madsere@okys.infoserv.com (Rene Madsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: FAS 2.10 async driver, part 5/5
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:29:21 GMT
Organization: Brackton Ltd. Luxembourg

In article <OOC680E@geminix.in-berlin.de>, gemini@geminix.in-berlin.de (Uwe Doering) writes:
> raymond@es.ele.tue.nl (Raymond Nijssen) writes:
> 
> >In article <103.2423@incc.com> jerry@incc.com (Jerry Rocteur) writes:
> >
> >>   [...] some of you who were abusive
> >>   and offensive really shine the light on what I can only describe as pimply
> >>   faced ignorant university types, or loud mouthed, 5' 2" nobodys who get 
> >>   their thrills by being offensive in email, anyway, you know who you are 
> >
> >Jerry, this is the SECOND TIME you insult people on the net.
> >Now who do you think you are? You just can't stop, can you? Even so, I would
> >strongly advise you to keep a very, very low profile.
> >
> >I didn't expect you to apologize for calling Uwe a 'bastard', but I thought
> >you would have learned your lesson NOT TO JUDGE ON OTHER PEOPLE in such
> >an unfriendly way.
> >
> >Did you realize that Uwe might have made a mistake?
> >Do you never make mistakes?
> 
> I'm not sure whether my posting of FAS to c.u.sysv386 can be considered
> a mistake. There is a reason why I posted it here.
> 
> First of all, I don't like moderated source groups. They failed too many
> times in the past. I don't want to leave it to a moderator to decide when
> it is the right time to release my sources. I prefer to set the release
> date myself. Maybe if there were a moderated source group that had kind
> of a guaranteed worst case latency between submitting and posting the
> sources, I could live with that. But as it is now, a source release can
> be easily delayed for several weeks, if not months, and the submitter
> can't do anything about it.
> 
> I don't want to bash the moderators of source groups here. I know that
> it is a lot of work to moderate a newsgroup, and there is also the
> job in the real life that has to be done to earn some money. So this
> leads to more or less delay between submitting and posting. However,
> I think that this is the moderator's problem, and I don't want him/her
> to make it my problem, too. So I post sources to unmoderated source
> groups.
> 
> Unfortunately, up to now the comp hierarchy doesn't have an unmoderated
> source group, so I had to post it to alt.source so that at least some
> archive sites get it. However, the alt hierarchy has a limited
> distribution. _Especially_ those UUCP sites that have to pay for
> their feed often don't carry the alt hierarchy. So to make the new
> FAS release available to them I crossposted it to the comp hierarchy.
> Again, _especially_ these pure UUCP sites have a strong interrest in
> FAS because their only connection to the USENET is via their serial
> lines.
> 
> Another reason why I crossposted FAS 2.10 to c.u.sysv386 and c.u.x.sco
> is that I did it with the last couple of FAS releases, too. And if my
> memory serves me right there was not a single complaint about this in
> the past. So I thought it's okay and people tolerate it for the sake
> of a wide-spread distribution of FAS.
> 
> I know that there are some sites that pay for their feed and have no
> use for FAS, but at the same time I know that there are lots of sites
> that don't get alt.sources, especially those that pay for their feed,
> and are happy to get the new release through c.u.sysv386. I guess I
> can't make it right for everybody.
> 
> So as long as alt.sources has limited distribution and there is no
> unmoderated, or at least fast enough, source group in the comp hierarchy,
> and there isn't an overwhelming protest against it, I will continue
> crossposting new FAS releases to the comp hierarchy. After all, there
> is no max volume guaranty for any newsgroup, and I must say who lives
> in Europe and polls his/her news directly from the USA via an interconti-
> nental phone call, and doesn't even share the costs with other sites,
> just calls for trouble. I'm not willing to restrict my actions because
> of the protest of a few individuals with sub-optimal news links when
> at the same time lots of people appreciate what I do. Sorry.
> 
> Well, I've just put on my asbestos suit. ;-)
> 
>      Uwe
> -- 
> Uwe Doering  |  INET : gemini@geminix.in-berlin.de
> Berlin       |----------------------------------------------------------------
> Germany      |  UUCP : ...!unido!fub!geminix.in-berlin.de!gemini

Well maybe so, but you keep forgetting that we are many who subscribes
here in europe for a cost of $95+/hour. And that's _just_ the telephone
cost of dialing a feeder in the states... The cost of receiving it from
the 'local' university is lower in phone cost, but __WAY__ higher in
transmission fees ... And the universities here have more or less a
monopoly on serving internet in europe) ... Unless you happen to actually
work or study on the mentionned university, in which case you may normally
post as much as you like, no matter the content or quality of the posting!

So as you might understand we are _very_ cautious on which groups we 
subscribe to. alt.sources is _definitely_ a no-no. It would usually be
cheaper to go out and buy whatever one need locally as a commercial
product, rather than download a public domain program.

For this reason it is _very_ annoying to see any waste of bandwidth, that
be unnececary discussions and comments or postings not belonging to a
certain group.

As is pointed out by Uwe, he already _know_ that he should have posted
to alt.sources rather than here, but thought I't would be appriciated,
and that alt.sources would not be fast enough or not be read by all ...

But why should FAS be different than all other sources ? I'm sure
there's a _lot_ of good stuff to be picked in alt.sources !

There is a system of newsgroups for a reason ... to let people subscribe
to their need! The result of these 'wrong' postings are that those of
us who pay this price go subscribe to the group will go and unsubscribe.

And yes, there are computers in use in Europa. Unfortunately we are a
bit behind America on the development and therefore tend to use your
good ideas (such as usenet), instead of reinventing the wheel. But the
European marked IS still at an equal size of America AND Canada AND
Mexico TOGETHER.

Asbestos suit on, gloves, boots ... ok ready for the flames ;-)

-- 
Rene Madsen                
Unix Systems Support/Dev.       
madsere@okys.infoserv.com