RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst
Jim Riley
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
Usenet newsgroup:
remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst
RATIONALE: remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst
This is one of a set of 31 low-traffic former INET groups proposed for
removal. Please see the article
"2nd RFD: Remove low traffic former INET groups"
posted to news.announce.newgroups and news.groups for a more general
discussion.
**********************************************************************************
RATIONALE: remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst
The newsgroup line is:
|comp.os.cpm.amethyst Discussion of Amethyst, CP/M-80 software package.
comp.os.cpm.amethyst has had no on-topic messages in the past 11 months.
Any discussion specific to Amethyst can take place on comp.os.cpm.
**********************************************************************************
PROCEDURE:
The full (draft) group removal procedure is documented here:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:rmgroup
Those who wish to comment on this request to remove this newsgroup
should subscribe to news.groups and participate in the relevant threads
in that newsgroup.
To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.
All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.
If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the discussion
may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken to ensure
that all discussion appears in news.groups as well.
DISTRIBUTION:
news.announce.newgroups (omitted)
news.groups
comp.os.cpm.amethyst
comp.os.cpm
PROPONENT:
Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
CHANGE HISTORY:
2006-07-08 Original RFD.
--
Jim Riley
Herb Johnson
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:07:06 +0200, French Luser
> <Gary.K...@Digital.Research.com> wrote:
>
> >Jim Riley wrote:
> >
> >>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
> >>Usenet newsgroup:
> >>
> >>remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst
> >
> >Oh, ****! Where am I going to publish my documents?
> --
> Jim Riley
Jim Riley wrote:
>
> Please note: It is comp.os.cpm.amethyst proposed for removal, not
> comp.os.cpm.
Mr.Riley:
The person known as "French Luser" is a French person who, for several
years, has "provided" documents and source code programs from or about
CP/M. This is the operating system written by Gary Kildall in the
mid-1970's which was the premier OS for microcomputers of the era. The
CP/M community is still modestly active, as a review of comp.os.cpm
traffic will show. Since long posts of source code or documents are
discouraged in newsgroups, "Luser" has chosen to use a disused NG,
namely "dot amethyst", for such posts., as any review of that NG will
show.
While "Luser" sometimes has his own priorities, in general he is
considered by most to be an asset to the CP/M community; his CP/M
knowledge is considerable; and his posted documents are of interest and
of value. He chooses this route to distribute such materials for
reasons which, in part, are a consequence of his circumstances and some
of the limitations of Internet service in France. All of this is
arguable; but most would agree he does much good and little if any
harm.
Consequently, I SUPPORT my colleague and I OPPOSE removal of the
newsgroup comp.os.cpm.amethyst.
Herb Johnson
**I'LL BE UNAVAILABLE FOR JULY 2006 - email replies delayed**
Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA
<a href="http://retrotechnology.com/herbs_stuff/"> web site</a>
<a href="http://retrotechnology.net/herbs_stuff/"> domain mirror</a>
my email address: hjohnson AAT retrotechnology DOTT com
if no reply, try in a few days: herbjohnson ATT comcast DOTT net
"Herb's Stuff": old Mac, SGI, 8-inch floppy drives
S-100 IMSAI Altair computers, docs, by "Dr. S-100"
Michael C Finn
"Jim Riley" <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:Zk5vg.1024$bP5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> [comp.os.cpm added to cross-post]
>
> Please note: It is comp.os.cpm.amethyst proposed for removal, not
> comp.os.cpm.
>
> <Gary.K...@Digital.Research.com> wrote:
>
> >Jim Riley wrote:
> >
> >>Usenet newsgroup:
> >>
> >>remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst
> >>Any discussion specific to Amethyst can take place on comp.os.cpm.
> >
> --
> Jim Riley
[comp.os.cpm.amethysy added to crosspost]
I would prefer to see comp.os.cpm.amethyst restructured to
comp.os.cpm.binary and its charter would be for publication of small program
code and reconstruction of various manuals and historical items where the
posting length exceeds what most posters consider reasonable for the text
newsgroup comp.os.cpm.
I am familiar with some of "French Luser's" efforts in reconstructing and
publishing various historical printed publications into electronic format
and he has made efficient use of the old group comp.os.cpm.amethyst rather
than posting a large file to the text group comp.os.cpm.
While there are a handful of web sites that have on-line download of older
material, there a just a few that would accept new submissions and release
them timely for public viewing or download. A binary newsgroup would still
have some benefit for CP/M users.
Ideally, if the group is kept but without the amethyst name, it should be a
moderated group to avoid spam and keep submissions on-topic. Perhaps a one
year trial and if it is not used according to an appropriate charter, it can
then be dropped for low-traffic/non-use.
Jim Riley
wrote:
>(note: this msg is cross posted.)
>
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:07:06 +0200, French Luser
>> <Gary.K...@Digital.Research.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Jim Riley wrote:
>> >
>> >>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
>> >>Usenet newsgroup:
>> >>
>> >>remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst
>> >
>> >Oh, ****! Where am I going to publish my documents?
>> --
>> Jim Riley
>
>Jim Riley wrote:
>>
>> Please note: It is comp.os.cpm.amethyst proposed for removal, not
>> comp.os.cpm.
>
>Mr.Riley:
>
>The person known as "French Luser" is a French person who, for several
>years, has "provided" documents and source code programs from or about
>CP/M. This is the operating system written by Gary Kildall in the
>mid-1970's which was the premier OS for microcomputers of the era. The
>CP/M community is still modestly active, as a review of comp.os.cpm
>traffic will show. Since long posts of source code or documents are
>discouraged in newsgroups, "Luser" has chosen to use a disused NG,
>namely "dot amethyst", for such posts., as any review of that NG will
>show.
Over the past 11 months, the only posts that I see in
comp.os.cpm.amethyst are:
"FS large lot of equipment"
Which was advertising "a huge collection of vintage equipment I want to
sell", which apparently selected comp.os.cpm.amethyst because some of
the computers used CP/M, or alternatively, persons interested in CP/M
would interested in the old equipment.
And:
"Microsoft " SoftCard " CP/M Reference Manual"
Which could as easily been posted to comp.os.cpm.
I don't see why French Luser's longish posts of source code and
documents could not be posted to comp.os.cpm. There has only been about
one new thread per day over the past month.
--
Jim Riley
Otaku
But the point is, the group is being used - and even vaguely on topic.
_You_ may not see why FL cannot post to comp.os.cpm, but the _users_ of
c.o.c and c.o.c.amethyst seem to be happy with the situation.
Has the Politburo now decided that they are the ones to decide whether a
particular group is "worthy" of being kept? Do the users of the groups
in question have no say? ISTM that if there are _any_ users of a group
which oppose its removal, it should be kept - after all, it is in some
way (however small) contributing to discussion - which is what (I always
thought) USENET was supposed to be all about.
--
©2006 Otaku (at) troll4fun (dot) com
I'm not an Iranian!! I voted for Dianne Feinstein!!
Tim Skirvin
> ISTM that if there are _any_ users of a group which oppose its removal,
> it should be kept - after all, it is in some way (however small)
> contributing to discussion - which is what (I always thought) USENET was
> supposed to be all about.
I'm curious, how do you reconcile this with your stance that it
should be difficult to create groups? Should just one user be enough to
make a group, as well?
My attitude on this: if there is traffic and a user-base, I don't
want to remove (most) any group. If there isn't, it shouldn't be a huge
amount of work to remove the group; but if this turns out to be a mistake,
we should re-create the group quickly and with a minimum of pain for
whoever it is that points out the mistake. And if such a removal system
works, then I'll feel much more comfortable about making "leaps of faith"
with newsgroup creation, which is, IMO, an important goal.
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
Chair, Big-8 Management Board
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<e9js4n$m01$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>:
> ... Has the Politburo now decided that they are the ones to decide whether a
>particular group is "worthy" of being kept?
Yes.
>Do the users of the groups
>in question have no say?
Users have a say. That's why there is a Request for Discussion (RFD)
that has been circulated to all of the groups that have been proposed
for removal.
>ISTM that if there are _any_ users of a group
>which oppose its removal, it should be kept - after all, it is in some
>way (however small) contributing to discussion - which is what (I always
>thought) USENET was supposed to be all about.
If there is on-topic discussion in the group, that seems to be
a good reason to keep the group.
The argument to keep the amethyst group seems odd to me.
comp.os.cpm users seem to have learned to look there for
old cpm documents.
Perhaps someone should write an RFD for comp.os.cpm.documents
(moderated).
Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.
pbetti
Otaku wrote:
> Has the Politburo now decided that they are the ones to decide whether a
> particular group is "worthy" of being kept? Do the users of the groups
Just in case the "politburo" decide to drop the ng, a question
raises.... There's someone who made a copy of the documents/material
posted here??
If the answer is "no", it's better begin to save all.
Piergiorgio
Jim Riley
If the board decides to not remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst, who is going to
make sure that there is a copy of the documents/material posted there?
--
Jim Riley
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<Zlovg.1336$bP5....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>>Just in case the "politburo" decide to drop the ng, a question
>>raises.... There's someone who made a copy of the documents/material
>>posted here??
The person who posted them probably has copies.
Google has preserved the links and text files. So, for example,
here is chapter 8 of IBM System/32 Reference manual:
(I can see why the os.cpm people would not want posts like this in their group.)
French Luser
> Google has preserved the links and text files. So, for example,
> here is chapter 8 of IBM System/32 Reference manual:
(...)
> (I can see why the os.cpm people would not want posts like this in their
> group.)
Hahaha! Very funny comment, Martin, since I retyped this manual precisely for
CP/M Old Timers like me...
This is, in fact, one of the two IBM documentations mentioned in the Intel
data sheet dealing with their Floppy Disk Controller, able, of course, to read
the famous IBM 3740 format or, if you prefer, the "Old Faithful" 8-inch floppy
diskette format.
I had noted those references 20 years ago, when disassembling a BIOS and its
subroutines dealing with the floppy disk drive. Back then, I could not find
those 2 references. (Some people call me an elephant for never forgetting a
reference to an article or a book, when I am, in fact, a book worm...)
Recently, I had the surprise to finally find it. So, I took advantage of one
rainy day to retype it (fast forward) and here it is, finally!
We will soon have almost everything that Gary Kildall had in 1972/1973 when he
created PL/M and CP/M, short of a DECsystem-10...
Yours Sincerely,
"French Luser"
Tim Skirvin
>> Has the Politburo now decided that they are the ones to decide whether a
>> particular group is "worthy" of being kept? Do the users of the groups
> Just in case the "politburo" decide to drop the ng, a question
> raises.... There's someone who made a copy of the documents/material
> posted here??
Google Groups, presumably. That's about as good as you get with
any newsgroup nowadays.
If you'd like to implement a newsgroup archiving project, I've got
some code to start you off:
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/software/news/kiboze/
Herb Johnson
> >
> > I don't see why French Luser's longish posts of source code and
> > documents could not be posted to comp.os.cpm. There has only been about
> > one new thread per day over the past month.
I appreciate your response, but (chuckle) light traffic is a BAD thing?
Considering the subject of c.o.c is a quarter-century old computing OS,
older than some OS developers (!), a thread a day is ASTOUNDING.
Otaku wrote:
> But the point is, the group is being used - and even vaguely on topic.
> _You_ may not see why FL cannot post to comp.os.cpm, but the _users_ of
> c.o.c and c.o.c.amethyst seem to be happy with the situation.
Indeed. There was a thread about that subject some years ago. "Luser"
DID post at one point on c.o.c, and some objected (including myself);
"Luser" came up with the "amethyst" solution, rather clever I thought.
"Luser" has described his reasons for such posts, in this thread
recently.
> Has the Politburo now decided that they are the ones to decide whether a
> particular group is "worthy" of being kept? Do the users of the groups
> in question have no say?.....
It's informative to read the related threads at news.groups, as
requested by Mr. Riley. Apparently, there is an effort to remove unused
newsgroups. Obviously "use" can be a judgement call. Notification
within the NG's selected, and our responses, are part of the apparent
process. I presume with good will, that no NG with any reasonable
response by its users will be deleted.
(But I have to admit, that as I read the discussion about these
removals in news.groups, I could not help thinking about the
"Hitchhiker's Guide" wherein the Vogon Construction Company posted
prior notice of demolotion of Earth at the "local office" - several
light years away but readily accessable, of course.)
It's hard to imagine that a NG with even a handful of end users over
periods of years, is nonetheless such a burden to the Internet and to
millions of news servers that it MUST be eliminated. Please keep in
mind the subject matter of the NG: legacy computing is not a
high-traffic discussion. It would be ironic if the keepers of Usenet,
itself a "legacy" from before the Web, would remove NG's that help to
preserve legacy computing, simply due to lack of traffic by post-WWW
standards.
Herb Johnson
Jim Riley
Google is an American for-profit corporation. While they may choose to
maintain the Usenet archive they are not compelled to do so. Prior to
Google, DejaNews maintained a Usenet archive and they went out of
business. Google later acquired the DejaNews archive.
Google has maintained archives of groups that have been removed, while
preventing users from posting to them. For example, the archives of
net.micro.cpm, the predecessor group for comp.os.cpm are available on
Google.
Google does not archive binaries, and sometimes modifies articles by
obscuring e-mail addresses. Some things that look like e-mail addresses
might be Message-ID's or even system commands. Google might decide at
some time to provide de-spamming filters for their archives. While that
may be useful for most users, it might accidentally catch some other
files, particularly if extremely large (4000 lines).
Simply put, if I wanted a reliable archive of CP/M files, I would not
depend on Google to maintain it for you. I would get as many copies as
possible on systems of enthusiasts, and then share access to these
archives through discussion in comp.os.cpm.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
wrote:
>> Jim Riley wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't see why French Luser's longish posts of source code and
>> > documents could not be posted to comp.os.cpm. There has only been about
>> > one new thread per day over the past month.
>
>I appreciate your response, but (chuckle) light traffic is a BAD thing?
Light traffic is not a bad thing.
His posts would appear to be on topic for comp.os.cpm, and it is not as
if they would either overwhelm nor be lost in comp.os.cpm.
>Indeed. There was a thread about that subject some years ago. "Luser"
>DID post at one point on c.o.c, and some objected (including myself);
On what basis did you object to his posting to comp.os.cpm?
--
Jim Riley
pbetti
Jim Riley wrote:
>
> Google is an American for-profit corporation. While they may choose to
> maintain the Usenet archive they are not compelled to do so.
That's why i saved a copy of the documents in question.... just to be
sure :-)
Piergiorgio
Dave Sill
> It's hard to imagine that a NG with even a handful of end users over
> periods of years, is nonetheless such a burden to the Internet and to
> millions of news servers that it MUST be eliminated.
No active newsgroup--however lightly it's used--is a target for
removal.
> Please keep in
> mind the subject matter of the NG: legacy computing is not a
> high-traffic discussion. It would be ironic if the keepers of Usenet,
> itself a "legacy" from before the Web, would remove NG's that help to
> preserve legacy computing, simply due to lack of traffic by post-WWW
> standards.
On the other hand, it's inevitable that some newsgroups for legacy
systems will die and be removed. That doesn't mean that users of those
systems can't discuss them on Usenet, just that they'll have to do it
elsewhere, such as alt.folklore.computers or a new Big 8 group like
comp.sys.obsolete.
-Dave
Tim Skirvin
> On the other hand, it's inevitable that some newsgroups for legacy
> systems will die and be removed. That doesn't mean that users of those
> systems can't discuss them on Usenet, just that they'll have to do it
> elsewhere, such as alt.folklore.computers or a new Big 8 group like
> comp.sys.obsolete.
I'd certainly subscribe to such a group. You should officially
propose it, Dave.
Herb Johnson
not participated in comp.os.cpm. C.o.c has existed for over a decade,
perhaps two. Some of those members have participated for most of that
period. many for several years. Over the last SEVERAL years there have
evolved a number of tacit agreements among the more active members.
Consider the subject matter: an operating system developed in the
mid-1970's - OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO. THIRTY. I'll mention that often in
my response. I've been around c.o.c for well over a decade, so I'll
presume to describe some of this as I recall it.
Participants in c.o.c discuss and support use and preservation of CP/M
and related software, and hardware, of the era; many participants were
major players in that period and afterwards. Some still use that
hardware and software. In the last few years there's a resurgance of
interest for software use in emulators on modern computers; and for use
on new or reproduction computers. There's not much OT discussion.
Given this long history and a perspective from decades past, some use
and tacit agreements of use of c.o.c may seem odd from a modern
perspective; or they may simply be the local culture, like any other
newsgroup.
1) C.o.c is, by "modern" newsgroup standards, a low volume group, zero
to a few posts a day, several when a thread is controversial or about
new activities. Consider the subject matter, please. I think present
volume is satisfactory to most participants. Any new development is
generally discussed via specific Web-based forums, with occasional
posts to c.o.c. But a number of projects started here, and are reported
upon here. In 2005-06 a Z180 computer design was remanufactured for use
of CP/M programs, thanks to c.o.c discussion.
2) The practice of using "dot amethyst" for sources and documents was a
consequence of NG practices of the 1990's and earlier. Posts of code
and documents were discouraged in c.o.c as they "ate bandwidth" , and
cluttered the newsgroup (archaic notions, but again consider the
subject), and encouraged more of the same. However, persons like
"French Luser" wanted to use "Usenet" as a kind of archive as well as a
distribution medium, as he has recently posted. Rather than clutter
c.o.c, he cleverly used an unused NG "adjacent" to c.o.c, namely
amethyst. This practice is at least harmless, and has been useful as
intended.
In the 21st century many people use Web sites and bitstream and other
alphabet-soup-named services to DISTRIBUTE documents and code. However,
again consider the subject; this is about PRESERVING information, for
DECADES. One of the few persistant "archives" over the last 20 years
has been newsgroup content itself. Indeed, since 2000 a number of
previously persistant archives of CP/M (and MS-DOS, and other sets of
programs) have fallen off the Web. Who else, other than Google and
maybe the US Library of Congress, is actively archiving amd providing
old information (and not discarding it)?
3) It's suggested that a moderated "comp.binaries.cpm" may be
necessary. Simply put, if moderation is not needed now, why would it be
needed later? Perhaps because in effect the otherwise obscure "dot
amethyst" would by change of name become a target for misuse? Sometimes
the best solution is to DO NOTHING, i.e. maintain the status quo.
4) I've suggested some c.o.c members have some idiosyncratic methods
and practices. Again, consider the subject and its long history, or
just group culture. One archaic notion is "size" or "capacity". For
readers who do not know the history, CP/M is an OS from the days when
64,000 BYTES of memory was sufficient for both OS and programs, and a
MILLION bytes of disk storage was adequate for program, data and
document storage. It sounds meager, but it was revolutionary at the
time. All of today's computing infrastructure came from somewhere: is
it unreasonable to preserve space and resources for those who have
interest in that? Conversely, would you expect those with such
interests and background, to also be completely "modern" about their
activities today?
I am, or have been, a programmer and digital engineer. I can make a
case for modern relevance for notions of small size and limited
features. Usenet itself is a case in point. I won't say more here,
because I think the case for preserving computing history is
sufficiently compelling.
4) It's easy for someone to just look around and say "you could do this
better THIS way...you could do THIS instead of THAT...you could go HERE
instead of THERE"..and so forth. One comment to this effect by Dave
Still (of the "Big 8") is worth quoting:
"No active newsgroup--however lightly it's used--is a target for
removal....On the other hand, it's inevitable that some newsgroups for
legacy
systems will die and be removed. That doesn't mean that users of those
systems can't discuss them on Usenet, just that they'll have to do it
elsewhere, such as alt.folklore.computers or a new Big 8 group like
comp.sys.obsolete."
(sigh) Frankly, Mr. Still, Dave, you are talking to people who are 'WAY
PAST the "inevitable", way past "legacy". Some of us even LIKE
"obsolete", to be off the radar for instance from ever-changing OS's
and hardware that is not stable, occasionally not reliable, from birth
to death (i.e. 18 months, or maybe 18 weeks). Not to brag, but last
month I took an evening to bring up a computer which was manufactured
in 1978. Do you think a computer from 2006 will be repairable - much
less operational - in 2034? Tell ME about obsolete?
As for suggesting you can lump c.o.c with alt.folklore or "some new
group"; I think you may want to reconsider that statement as just bad
politics. You really did not mean that you know better than the
participants where they should or should not post; where they should
congregate and where they shouldn't; and where they should move to.
In fact, with all due respect, if I were you I'd be CAUTIOUS about
making statements like that, it could bite you back. If you look
around, you may find a few people who would say the same of Usenet.
Hard to believe I'm sure, but would YOU want to hear that Usenet would
be considered for "removal as legacy...inevitable to die..to be done
elsewhere"? Say, in some "podcasts.obsolete.usenet" space?
I hope some of this review, and a bit of turn-about, are informative if
not amusing. I continue to assume, based on good will and least effort,
if not common sense, that the status quo will be more or less preserved
for the groups discussed in this thread. Thanks for the opportunity to
discuss changes well before they are acted upon.
Herb Johnson
(note: replies to my Gmail address will not be read, my email address
is encrypted below.)
s_dub...@yahoo.com
Dave Sill wrote:
> "Herb Johnson" <herbrj...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > It's hard to imagine that a NG with even a handful of end users over
> > periods of years, is nonetheless such a burden to the Internet and to
> > millions of news servers that it MUST be eliminated.
>
> No active newsgroup--however lightly it's used--is a target for
> removal.
>
value of
usenet newsgroups. The archival value of usenet is one of its most
important
aspects.
> > Please keep in
> > mind the subject matter of the NG: legacy computing is not a
> > high-traffic discussion. It would be ironic if the keepers of Usenet,
> > itself a "legacy" from before the Web, would remove NG's that help to
> > preserve legacy computing, simply due to lack of traffic by post-WWW
> > standards.
>
> On the other hand, it's inevitable that some newsgroups for legacy
> systems will die and be removed. That doesn't mean that users of those
> systems can't discuss them on Usenet, just that they'll have to do it
> elsewhere, such as alt.folklore.computers or a new Big 8 group like
> comp.sys.obsolete.
>
Again, it isn't just the current discussions that have value. There is
great value
in the past discussions by noteable members who are no longer with us.
To
kill off a newsgroup destroys for the future seekers the knowledge of
the past.
> -Dave
Tim Skirvin
>> No active newsgroup--however lightly it's used--is a target for
>> removal.
> The problem with that attitude is it effectively destroys the research
> value of usenet newsgroups. The archival value of usenet is one of its
> most important aspects.
While I agree with this in theory, I don't think it's very
relevant in practice. What news servers are both a) acting as long-term
(15+ year) archives and b) honoring checkgroups to the extent that they
would remove that archive if somebody removed the group?
rmgroups don't remove content that old; that's covered by the
expiration policies.
Doug Freyburger
> Dave Sill wrote:
>
> > No active newsgroup--however lightly it's used--is a target for
> > removal.
>
> The problem with that attitude is it effectively destroys the research
> value of usenet newsgroups. The archival value of usenet is one of its most
> important aspects.
When did archive searches stop working on removed groups? I
do Google searches on removed searches every few months and
it works just fine.
When did reading messages over several years old start working
on any newsgroup? Any time I've used a real newsreader pointed
at an NSP it has used a repository that expires articles in under
a couple of years.
Has COCA seen any on-topic traffic in the last couple of years?
If it has then it won't be removed. If it hasn't then you need to
use an archive to search it whether it exists anymore or not.
> To
> kill off a newsgroup destroys for the future seekers the knowledge of
> the past.
Incorrect. I do searches on removed groups in archives and I
find the material I'm looking for.
Brian Mailman
> That sounds like a much more serious waste of time than the trivial
> amount of time it takes grep to skip the one line when someone else
> searches for a group.
What it sounds like is the ultimate NIMBY group. Which don't work in
alt.*, but maybe Big 8 is different.
B/
Jim Riley
>Dave Sill wrote:
>> "Herb Johnson" <herbrj...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > It's hard to imagine that a NG with even a handful of end users over
>> > periods of years, is nonetheless such a burden to the Internet and to
>> > millions of news servers that it MUST be eliminated.
>>
>> No active newsgroup--however lightly it's used--is a target for
>> removal.
>>
>The problem with that attitude is it effectively destroys the research
>value of usenet newsgroups. The archival value of usenet is one of its most
>important aspects.
fa.info-cpm and net.micro.cpm are still available in the Google
archives, and they were removed nearly 20 years ago. If
comp.os.amethyst had been removed when the discussion of the Amethyst
package had run its course, Google would have a more useful archive.
If you look in the Google archives as time goes on, you get less and
less accurate answers as to "what is this group for?"
In 2005, the answer given to the question was that it was a BBS system
that ran on CP/M.
In 2001, the answer given was that it was a computer that used CP/M as
its operating system.
In 1997, the answer was to pull up an article from 1991 that explained
that back before the IBM PC came along there was a BDS C compiler, an
editor called Mince, and a formatter called Scribble that were sold
together as a package called Amethyst.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
>"Herb Johnson" <herbrj...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> It's hard to imagine that a NG with even a handful of end users over
>> periods of years, is nonetheless such a burden to the Internet and to
>> millions of news servers that it MUST be eliminated.
>
>No active newsgroup--however lightly it's used--is a target for
>removal.
Some people may have misunderstood what Dave Sill is saying here.
comp.os.cpm is an active newsgroup. By Big 8 standards it is NOT
lightly used. It is probably around the 50th percentile of activity.
Summary: comp.os.cpm is NOT A TARGET for removal.
On the other hand comp.os.cpm.amethyst is not an active newsgroups.
Every few years someone drops in and asks what the group is for. If
someone bothers to answer at all, they give a wrong answer, suggesting
that the Amethyst was a computer that used CP/M or was a BBS system.
But if you go back far enough, to 1997, you can find where someone
answers the question by pulling up a a couple of messages from 1991. The
first was: "What's this group for?"
The second then explained what Amethyst actually was, recalling the time
back before the IBM PC, and then mentioned how Borland had acquired the
version that had been ported to MS-DODS, and killed it in 1987.
There have been tons more discussion about Mince, Scribble, and BDS C in
comp.os.cpm than the ZERO discussion in comp.os.cpm.amethyst.
>> Please keep in
>> mind the subject matter of the NG: legacy computing is not a
>> high-traffic discussion. It would be ironic if the keepers of Usenet,
>> itself a "legacy" from before the Web, would remove NG's that help to
>> preserve legacy computing, simply due to lack of traffic by post-WWW
>> standards.
>
>On the other hand, it's inevitable that some newsgroups for legacy
>systems will die and be removed. That doesn't mean that users of those
>systems can't discuss them on Usenet, just that they'll have to do it
>elsewhere, such as alt.folklore.computers or a new Big 8 group like
>comp.sys.obsolete.
Since comp.os.cpm is around the median of Big 8 groups in activity, I
don't see this happening to it any time soon.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
wrote:
>In the 21st century many people use Web sites and bitstream and other
>alphabet-soup-named services to DISTRIBUTE documents and code. However,
>again consider the subject; this is about PRESERVING information, for
>DECADES. One of the few persistant "archives" over the last 20 years
>has been newsgroup content itself. Indeed, since 2000 a number of
>previously persistant archives of CP/M (and MS-DOS, and other sets of
>programs) have fallen off the Web. Who else, other than Google and
>maybe the US Library of Congress, is actively archiving amd providing
>old information (and not discarding it)?
Google did not begin their newsgroup archive until recently. They
acquired Dejanews archive, plus some other archives from the beginning
of time (1981 for Usenet). These earliest archives were just ordinary
users or news admins making backups. Because comp.os.cpm.amethyst was
an INET group it did not find its articles into these private archives.
Google does not have any of the actual discussion about Amethyst that
may have occured before 1990.
If you are serious about maintaining this legacy, you won't depend on
Google to do it for you.
>3) It's suggested that a moderated "comp.binaries.cpm" may be
>necessary. Simply put, if moderation is not needed now, why would it be
>needed later? Perhaps because in effect the otherwise obscure "dot
>amethyst" would by change of name become a target for misuse? Sometimes
>the best solution is to DO NOTHING, i.e. maintain the status quo.
A group with the name "binaries" attracts binaries. If they are about
"cpm" it will only be because there is a band by that name, or there is
sexual practice that goes by those initials. Moderation is needed to
keep the off topic stuff out.
In addition, the moderator of a "comp.binaries.cpm" could also maintain
an archive, which would be much more organized, and could also include
actual CP/M binaries (which Google does not archive from newsgroups).
>I am, or have been, a programmer and digital engineer. I can make a
>case for modern relevance for notions of small size and limited
>features. Usenet itself is a case in point. I won't say more here,
>because I think the case for preserving computing history is
>sufficiently compelling.
If I felt this compulsion, I would not depend on comp.os.cpm.amethyst
and Google.
--
Jim Riley
David Bostwick
>In article <wx0ejwg...@sws5.ornl.gov>, Dave Sill <d...@big-8.org> wrote:
>>No active newsgroup--however lightly it's used--is a target for
>>removal.
>
>using such subjective terminology to refer to what they are doing.
>
>What is an "active" newsgroup?
>What is "lightly" in terms of newsgroup usage?
>
So propose a definition. Or did I miss that?
Dave Sill
> 1) C.o.c is, by "modern" newsgroup standards, a low volume group, zero
> to a few posts a day, several when a thread is controversial or about
> new activities.
That's fine.
> Consider the subject matter, please. I think present volume is
> satisfactory to most participants.
Nobody is talking about removing c.o.c.
> 2) The practice of using "dot amethyst" for sources and documents was a
> consequence of NG practices of the 1990's and earlier. Posts of code
> and documents were discouraged in c.o.c as they "ate bandwidth" , and
> cluttered the newsgroup (archaic notions, but again consider the
> subject), and encouraged more of the same. However, persons like
> "French Luser" wanted to use "Usenet" as a kind of archive as well as a
> distribution medium, as he has recently posted. Rather than clutter
> c.o.c, he cleverly used an unused NG "adjacent" to c.o.c, namely
> amethyst. This practice is at least harmless, and has been useful as
> intended.
It's not really harmless if French Luser's articles have worth because
a knowledgeable CP/M user won't necessarily think to look in .amethyst
for them.
> ... Who else, other than Google and
> maybe the US Library of Congress, is actively archiving amd providing
> old information (and not discarding it)?
Archive.org, who might well have archived those web sites you
mentioned that have gone away.
> 3) It's suggested that a moderated "comp.binaries.cpm" may be
> necessary. Simply put, if moderation is not needed now, why would it be
> needed later? Perhaps because in effect the otherwise obscure "dot
> amethyst" would by change of name become a target for misuse? Sometimes
> the best solution is to DO NOTHING, i.e. maintain the status quo.
I don't think that what we've got now is the best solution. Using
.amethyst is a hack: it sort of works, but it's obscure.
> I am, or have been, a programmer and digital engineer. I can make a
> case for modern relevance for notions of small size and limited
> features. Usenet itself is a case in point. I won't say more here,
> because I think the case for preserving computing history is
> sufficiently compelling.
Nobody is arguing for removing any history--.amethyst archives
will remain even if the group is removed.
> 4) It's easy for someone to just look around and say "you could do this
> better THIS way...you could do THIS instead of THAT...you could go HERE
> instead of THERE"..and so forth. One comment to this effect by Dave
> Still (of the "Big 8") is worth quoting:
That's Sill, with no "t".
> "No active newsgroup--however lightly it's used--is a target for
> removal....On the other hand, it's inevitable that some newsgroups
> for legacy systems will die and be removed. That doesn't mean that
> users of those systems can't discuss them on Usenet, just that
> they'll have to do it elsewhere, such as alt.folklore.computers or a
> new Big 8 group like comp.sys.obsolete."
>
> (sigh) Frankly, Mr. Still, Dave, you are talking to people who are 'WAY
> PAST the "inevitable", way past "legacy". Some of us even LIKE
> "obsolete", to be off the radar for instance from ever-changing OS's
> and hardware that is not stable, occasionally not reliable, from birth
> to death (i.e. 18 months, or maybe 18 weeks). Not to brag, but last
> month I took an evening to bring up a computer which was manufactured
> in 1978. Do you think a computer from 2006 will be repairable - much
> less operational - in 2034? Tell ME about obsolete?
So your whole objection to the paragraph you quoted was the
insinuation that Amethyst or maybe even CP/M is obsolete? Get over
it. I was speaking in general terms. Do you think that some active
groups *should* be removed? Do you think that groups for obsolete
systems will not die and be removed? Do you think it would be bad to
have a catch-all Big 8 group for systems no longer in production?
> As for suggesting you can lump c.o.c with alt.folklore or "some new
> group";
Repeat after me: "nobody is talking about removing c.o.c."
> I think you may want to reconsider that statement as just bad
> politics. You really did not mean...
Don't try to tell me what I meant.
> that you know better than the participants where they should or
> should not post;
Repeat after me: "no active newsgroup is a target for removal."
> where they should congregate and where they shouldn't; and where
> they should move to.
The purpose of comp.sys.obsolete, or something like it, would be to
create a place where such systems, without groups of their own, could
be discussed--not to move existing discussion there and remove active
groups.
> In fact, with all due respect, if I were you I'd be CAUTIOUS about
> making statements like that, it could bite you back. If you look
> around, you may find a few people who would say the same of Usenet.
Myself included.
> Hard to believe I'm sure, but would YOU want to hear that Usenet would
> be considered for "removal as legacy...inevitable to die..to be done
> elsewhere"? Say, in some "podcasts.obsolete.usenet" space?
Absolutely. I still find Usenet useful, but I'm not interested in
pretending that it's as vibrant as it was twenty years ago. Preserving
Usenet won't be accomplished by pretending it's 1990, but by realizing
it's 2006, and working to keep it viable under the current conditions.
> I hope some of this review, and a bit of turn-about, are informative if
> not amusing. I continue to assume, based on good will and least effort,
> if not common sense, that the status quo will be more or less preserved
> for the groups discussed in this thread. Thanks for the opportunity to
> discuss changes well before they are acted upon.
Offhand, I'd say c.o.c.amethyst is in danger of being removed. The
French Luser articles are off topic, and there is currently absolutely
no on-topic use of the group. I'm not convinced that FL's stuff is too
bulky to go in c.o.c, so I'm leaning away from creating a
comp.binaries.cpm for that purpose.
-Dave
David Bostwick
>In article <e9qqd4$ohv$1...@news-int.gatech.edu>,
>other people use, it is their responsibility to do that. It is even more
>their responsibility when they've taken up the mantle of authority and
>appointed themselves in charge.
>
But you're the one complaining about subjective terminology. If you don't
want to propose a value for what's considered active or light, that's fine,
but don't fuss if others don't. Not every responsibility is someone else's.
I think your argument is that there's no real need to remove dead newsgroups,
so it makes no difference how a dead group is determined. I lean toward that
(subjective) opinion, too, but neither keeping nor removing dead groups is A
Big Deal. The discussion, however, has certainly kept news.groups from any
danger of being defined as dead.
Dave Sill
> What is an "active" newsgroup?
My definition is roughly:
A group with at least one non-crossposted, on-topic posting per
month.
I say roughly because I could be convinced to adjust the frequency one
way or the other, and it might even vary from group to group or
seasonally or...
> What is "lightly" in terms of newsgroup usage?
That's upspecified, but anything less than a few non-crossposted,
on-topic postings per day would certainly qualify as lightly
trafficked.
>>systems can't discuss them on Usenet, just that they'll have to do it
>>elsewhere, such as alt.folklore.computers or a new Big 8 group like
>>comp.sys.obsolete.
>
> So you are saying that is it better for someone who greps the active
> file for "cpm" to find a spot to ask a CP/M question to get 0 results
> and then fumble about until he finds, if he does, comp.sys.obsolete, and
> then guess that the system he uses every day is now considered obsolete
> by the Founders?
Someone who greps the active file for cpm--even if c.o.c.amethyst is
removed--will still see c.o.c, not "0 results". Someone who greps for
some other obsolete s/w or h/w that doesn't have an active group will
get no hits, but *might* stumble upon comp.sys.obsolete--especially if
the system in question has been discussed there in the past. Would
that be objectionable to you?
-Dave
David Bostwick
>In article <e9r6ab$s9v$1...@news-int.gatech.edu>,
>David Bostwick <david.b...@chemistry.gatech.edu> jumps in with
>both feet:
>>>Thanks for popping up again, David. It's not my job to define the words
>>>other people use, it is their responsibility to do that. It is even more
>>>their responsibility when they've taken up the mantle of authority and
>>>appointed themselves in charge.
>>>
>>
>>But you're the one complaining about subjective terminology.
>
>slight hope that it sinks in this time: I'm not responsible for providing
>definitions to subjective terms that other people keep using. It certainly
>is within my rights and responsibilities to ASK people to either stop
>using such meaningless words or to define them so they have a meaning
>we all know.
>
But no one has the right to ask you to propose a definition for your words.
OK, got it. Some people are above the requirements they place on others.
>I could certainly ATTEMPT to define these words for other people, but
>were I to waste my time trying to make them use my definitions, I'd be
>the fool you keep trying to pretend I am. You are the fool if you think
>I'm going to fall into that trap for you.
Then why do you spend so much time arguing the definition of consensus, and
trying to persuade others that your definition is correct?
>
>>I think your argument is that there's no real need to remove dead newsgroups,
>
>My QUESTIONs were about a statement that appears to be contradictory on
>its face. It was a statement that no active newsgroup would be targeted
>for removal no matter how lightly used it was. "No matter how lightly"
>is a phrase that includes zero use; that prompts the question of exactly
>what an active group is if one that has "zero use" qualifies as one.
>
>That statement was made by, IIRC, Dave Sill, who is one of the Elite
>Eight Who Know Better Than We Do. We Who Are Johhny Come Latelies deserve
>enough respect from these people that they at least use terms that have
>some meaning.
>
>Now, if you can define these words for the OP, fine, please do
>so. Otherwise, go jump down someone else's throat for awhile.
>
John, get a skin. Anyone who comments on your statements offends you, unless
they simply repeat your opinions. I'm sure the world would be a better place
if you were in charge of everything. You're not, so get over yourself.
If you had read all of the post (including the part you edited out), as you
encourage others to do, you would have seen that I *agreed* with your
position. If that's jumping down your throat, I can see why you have trouble
with others' definitions.
>>The discussion, however, has certainly kept news.groups from any
>>danger of being defined as dead.
>
>I'm glad that keeping news.groups from appearing dead is a goal you
>seek.
>
John, you're doing a much better job at that than I ever could. Post away,
repeat youself, don't listen to others, or do whatever fulfills you. In fact,
to preserve those groups that might be removed, why don't you post in them, so
that no group is ever considered dead? That way, you win.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<1153342163.9...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
> ... Notification
>within the NG's selected, and our responses, are part of the apparent
>process.
Yes.
>I presume with good will, that no NG with any reasonable
>response by its users will be deleted.
I presume so, too.
>(But I have to admit, that as I read the discussion about these
>removals in news.groups, I could not help thinking about the
>"Hitchhiker's Guide" wherein the Vogon Construction Company posted
>prior notice of demolotion of Earth at the "local office" - several
>light years away but readily accessable, of course.)
Grab your towel and some ale! ;o)
>It's hard to imagine that a NG with even a handful of end users over
>periods of years, is nonetheless such a burden to the Internet and to
>millions of news servers that it MUST be eliminated. Please keep in
>mind the subject matter of the NG: legacy computing is not a
>high-traffic discussion. It would be ironic if the keepers of Usenet,
>itself a "legacy" from before the Web, would remove NG's that help to
>preserve legacy computing, simply due to lack of traffic by post-WWW
>standards.
Use it or lose it.
A group with zero on-topic messages over a long period isn't
helping to preserve legacy computing, as far as I can tell.
Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<1153428021.9...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>The problem with that attitude is it effectively destroys the research
>value of
>usenet newsgroups. The archival value of usenet is one of its most
>important
>aspects.
Closing a newsgroup to new posts does not change the archives.
They would still exist (if Google chooses to maintain them).
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<1153427566.4...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
> ... 3) It's suggested that a moderated "comp.binaries.cpm" may be
>necessary.
I suggested that it might be possible, even desirable, to have
such a group for Luser's docs and other materials.
Moderation of such a group is necessary because "binary"
groups tend to attract porn and warez. Luser is not the only
person to find that unused, unmoderated groups may be turned
to other purposes.
In my view, comp.os.cpm.amethyst should be removed.
What the cpm group does to compensate for that is for
them to decide: let Luser post in c.o.c., provide web space
for his materials, propose a new group to host the
documentation, or find another reasonable alternative.
Herb Johnson
reply in kind but this method can become argumentative, and create as
many disagreements as it resolves. So I'll repond briefly to the side
issues, and elsewhere to the main issues.
Speaking for myself, I'm on vacation, and editing and posting between
thunderstorms. I did not expect to have to describe or defend, chapter
and verse, the activities of myself or my colleagues over two decades
of CP/M activities. I did not expect to write to people with their
hands on a NG's off switch. So pardon my occasional short fuse, or
misunderstandings.
I apologize for misspelling Dave Sill's name.
I thought his remarks about eventual removal of legacy computing NG's
for "inactivity" were general, not specific to "dot amethyst". They
could include groups like c.o.c except for the amount of CURRENT volume
of posts, and for the ON TOPIC nature of those posts. Whereas, "dot
amethyst" is of much lower volume, and in principle the posts are off
the named topic, namely Amethyst, a CP/M software package.
But the persistant association of discussion between "dot amethyst" and
"c.o.c" is because the current use of "amethyst" is for posting
documents and sources of interest to c.o.c., by members of c.o.c.
Also, the volume of traffic in c.o.c WAS in discussion, relative to the
impact of routing "amethyst" traffic back to c.o.c. The merits of the
use of "amethyst" are debatable, that is true. But there is no
confusion about the status of c.o.c itself, the mantra of "nobody is
talking about removing c.o.c" is (generally) unnecessary.
But the other mantra that "no active newsgroup is a target for removal"
is not comforting, when the definition of active is qualified by
content, and to some extent by volume. Therefore the discussion of "dot
amethyst" is signifigant as KIND as well as volume of activity is in
question. That now appears to be the main point of discussion elsewhere
in the thread.
I appreciate you accepted some linkage between the computing legacy
content of CP/M and related NG's, and the computing history of Usenet.
Therefore, consider the notion of a "preserve" of CURRENT NG's based on
such considerations, to continue support for dicusssions and data
exchanges that are naturally sporatic, archaic, off-mandate, etc.
The creation of a new NG or groups with broad mandates is also
reasonable. Again, details of that are in discussion elsewhere.
My general comment, to be brief and to close, is that CP/M ers are well
aware that their interests and resources are somewhat marginal. The
actual use of "dot amethyst" as described is also marginal. The removal
of "dot amethyst", and your cited paragraph below about "legacy
systems" NGs, was to me simply a little too close to home.
However, I'm not dogmatic about this. I'm less disturbed by the
deletion of another related NG, comp.sys.zenith, simply because it's
not used AT ALL, and an allied NG comp.sys.zenith.z100 can be and has
been used within its general mandate to cover for the loss, if not
enhanced. I'm not insisting that ALL old computer NG's be preserved,
unchanging. I'm merely a long-time user of Usenet and some groups, some
of which are (or near, or associated with) groups given notice for
possible removal.
Herb Johnson
Herb Johnson
some bits of discussion (at least with me). My time is limited: I'm on
vacation, thunderstorms limit my access, I have travel plans. This will
probably conclude my discussion. My
apologies, but I'm not in charge anyway, I'm just a actual user.
The removal of comp.os.cpm is not at issue. That is understood. It has
an association with "dot amethyst" as discussed which is why it's
mentioned often.
Suggestions about other means of archiving for CP/M materials are
appreciated. They've been done and are being done (Google "CP/M
archives"). But the experience of DECADES is that people DIE and
institutions lose interest: only Usenet has persisted. I'm not a strong
proponent of this use of Usenet, I'm stating a case others have made,
it's not my first choice. However, consider that Google has the money,
organization and the will to be a long-term Usenet archive. Evidence?
http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/index.html
"Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it
universally accessible and useful." - first paragraph, first line on
their Company Overview page. It was noted in this thread, that Google
acquired Usenet archives from DejaNews. Google mentions Usenet
SPECIFICALLY on that very page. Consequently the value of Google as a
Usenet archive should not be brushed off.
It's been stated "use it or lose it", and "dot Amethyst" has "zero
use". A review of "dot Amethyst" by message threads (via Google) shows
60 threads since late 2002. 34 are mostly obscene trash. The rest are
CP/M related document posts, and a few questions, and this thread.
About four full years of use, an average of under one relevant use a
month, with one easily ignorable bit of trash. This is not "zero use",
except for zero mention of Amethyst. As for volume, relative to the
once-per-day average thread in c.o.c, a monthly post of sources or
documents in "Amethyst" is not unreasonable. Discussions of "legacy"
computing are sporatic by the nature of the subject, as discussed
elsewhere in this thread.
My suggestions: Take no immediate action on "dot amethyst". Encourage a
"comp.binaries.cpm", and see if CP/M ers migrate use to it, and
reconsider then. Don't delete the "hack" before the "update" is
installed and working.
Herb Johnson
Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA
<a href="http://retrotechnology.com/herbs_stuff/"> web site</a>
<a href="http://retrotechnology.net/herbs_stuff/"> domain mirror</a>
my email address: hjohnson AAT retrotechnology DOTT com
if no reply, try in a few days: herbjohnson ATT comcast DOTT net
"Herb's Stuff": old Mac, SGI, 8-inch floppy drives
S-100 IMSAI Altair computers, docs, by "Dr. S-100"
Jim Riley
wrote:
>http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/index.html
>
>"Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it
>universally accessible and useful." - first paragraph, first line on
>their Company Overview page. It was noted in this thread, that Google
>acquired Usenet archives from DejaNews. Google mentions Usenet
>SPECIFICALLY on that very page. Consequently the value of Google as a
>Usenet archive should not be brushed off.
But the time when comp.os.cpm.amethyst actually was used to discuss
Amethyst is NOT available at Google. Adding extraneous material not
related to Amethyst is actually corrupting the Google archive, not much
difference than the spam. In the case of comp.os.cpm.amethyst,
continuation is not making the information organized or useful.
If one wanted old discussion that was actually about CP/M, one would
look in the Google archives of net.micro.cpm and fa.info-cpm.
Or create a specific Google Group for the French Luser document posts if
you want to place your faith in Google.
>It's been stated "use it or lose it", and "dot Amethyst" has "zero
>use". A review of "dot Amethyst" by message threads (via Google) shows
>60 threads since late 2002. 34 are mostly obscene trash. The rest are
>CP/M related document posts, and a few questions, and this thread.
>About four full years of use, an average of under one relevant use a
>month, with one easily ignorable bit of trash. This is not "zero use",
>except for zero mention of Amethyst.
Over the more recent times, actual discussion of the Amethyst components
(Mince, Scribble, and BDS C) has occured in comp.os.cpm.
>My suggestions: Take no immediate action on "dot amethyst". Encourage a
>"comp.binaries.cpm", and see if CP/M ers migrate use to it, and
>reconsider then. Don't delete the "hack" before the "update" is
>installed and working.
One problem with a true binaries group would be that Google will not
archive it. Maybe it doesn't fall in their mission statement.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
wrote:
>I thought his remarks about eventual removal of legacy computing NG's
>for "inactivity" were general, not specific to "dot amethyst". They
>could include groups like c.o.c except for the amount of CURRENT volume
>of posts, and for the ON TOPIC nature of those posts.
They were general. You may have missed the point where I noted that
comp.os.cpm is about the median in activity.
>But the other mantra that "no active newsgroup is a target for removal"
>is not comforting, when the definition of active is qualified by
>content, and to some extent by volume. Therefore the discussion of "dot
>amethyst" is signifigant as KIND as well as volume of activity is in
>question. That now appears to be the main point of discussion elsewhere
>in the thread.
As early as ***1991****, people were wondering what comp.os.cpm.amethyst
was for. And they were told that back in the good old days ...
When people ask what comp.os.cpm was for, and grandad tells the young
kids about the early times before computers were implanted in the brain,
and the kid remembers an old movie where he saw some sort of computing
device that people held up to their ear, and asks, "Was that a CP/M, a
Cell Phone/Mobile?", and granddad has to explain that it was even before
that. That will be when comp.os.cpm goes away.
--
Jim Riley
Herb Johnson
> On 22 Jul 2006 11:20:26 -0700, "Herb Johnson" <herbrj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >My suggestions: Take no immediate action on "dot amethyst". Encourage a
> >"comp.binaries.cpm", and see if CP/M ers migrate use to it, and
> >reconsider then. Don't delete the "hack" before the "update" is
> >installed and working.
>
>
> Anything FL posts to a binary group will be available only as long as
> the news servers each of us use allow before expiring it and then it
> will be gone. Forget Google as a resource under your suggestion above
> because Google doesn't archive binary groups.
(I've CC this response to the appropriate NG's.)
I don't pretend to know anything about binary groups: my intent was to
defend current use of "dot amethyst", and I did so. Given the above and
my defense, comp.binaries.cpm would not be an appropriate alternative.
Herb Johnson
> On 22 Jul 2006 10:47:10 -0700, "Herb Johnson" <herbrj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I thought his remarks about eventual removal of legacy computing NG's
> >for "inactivity" were general, not specific to "dot amethyst". They
> >could include groups like c.o.c except for the amount of CURRENT volume
> >of posts, and for the ON TOPIC nature of those posts.
>
> They were general. You may have missed the point where I noted that
> comp.os.cpm is about the median in activity.
I did not miss your point, to the contrary I congratulate you for
documenting how active c.o.c is. Thank you.
> >But the other mantra that "no active newsgroup is a target for removal"
> >is not comforting, when the definition of active is qualified by
> >content, and to some extent by volume. Therefore the discussion of "dot
> >amethyst" is signifigant as KIND as well as volume of activity is in
> >question. That now appears to be the main point of discussion elsewhere
> >in the thread.
>
> As early as ***1991****, people were wondering what comp.os.cpm.amethyst
> was for. And they were told that back in the good old days ...
Stipulated: "dot Amethyst" has not discussed Amethyst for years. That
was determined by reviewing posts, which has been done. That is not in
contention.
Point in discussion: is use of "dot Amethyst" for *CP/M related posts*
cause to continue such use, to the benefit of c.o.c? The traffic in
"dot Amethyst" is not "zero posts" as previously stated. I found by my
own review zero Amethyst posts plus one CP/M post plus one porn/spam
post - per month, approximately. Did you miss MY point about that?
> When people ask what comp.os.cpm was for, and grandad tells the young
> kids about the early times before computers were implanted in the brain,
> and the kid remembers an old movie where he saw some sort of computing
> device that people held up to their ear, and asks, "Was that a CP/M, a
> Cell Phone/Mobile?", and granddad has to explain that it was even before
> that. That will be when comp.os.cpm goes away.
> --
> Jim Riley
This is in part a provocative statement, the core of which is not in
debate: over time, many things are forgotten by many people. While
c.o.c is not going away, today, "dot Amethyst" may be, and that's
getting kinda close.
Here's the case that I'm trying to make, but I did not realize that I
had to make it so fundamentally.
Usenet is not just a collection of discussions in newsgroups. It's
become an ARCHIVE. Archives are the response to the situation you've
stated above: people forget, people don't know. They turn to archives
to find out. Usenet is of course a place for conversations: once you
know, you can find a place to ask or tell. But the "archive" value of
Usenet is recognized by no less than Google, a multibillion dollar
company which has not only acquired archives, they acknowledge the
value of acquiring Usenet archives ON THEIR CORPORATE HOME PAGE. The
use of "dot Amethyst" is not merely some old French guy's means of
posting retyped documents; it's consistent with his, and Google's, and
other's recognition of Usenet as the PERSISTANT ARCHIVE of computing
activity of the 20th century.
I'm defending the use of "dot amethyst" specifically, as a means for
distributing and archiving documents and programs relevant to a part of
COMPUTING HISTORY. And it takes computers to archive computing - think
about it. That's the part unique to Usenet, and not say some CD-ROM of
old programs. Likewise, if you want to continue a conversation about
legacy computing, you don't break off the discussion just because there
is a lull, or that it's drifted a bit. Much less, if ths drift is
PERSISTANT AND RELEVANT - not "zero posts".
Granted, this use of "comp.os.cpm.amethyst" is a bit "off topic", it's
not the intended purpose, it's not often used, there are other ways.
But if that use and activity can't be defended THERE, it will be easier
to remove other legacy computing groups ELSEWHERE, at a later time when
they too eventually fall into relative disuse or "off topic" behavior,
as suggested by Mr Riley's comments that such discussions will go to
zero or confusion.
So, is Usenet going to LEAD AGAINST the loss of, and silence about, its
own history and maintain a few venues? or CONTRIBUTE TO the loss of
history by closing a marginal venue that bent a few rules? I can't put
it simpler or bolder.
And if you want the tearjerker response to Mr. Riley's statement;
....the kid tells Granddad he saw an old movie about a device held up
to the ear someone called "CP/M". But the kid used his brain computer
to check Googletown, and Mr. Usenet said that CP/M was used long ago to
run computers OUTSIDE the brain! And they talked to those computers in
some language called "program". "Grandpa, did you ever have one of
those computers? Did you speak program to them?".....
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<1153679354....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>Jim Higgins wrote:
>> Anything FL posts to a binary group will be available only as long as
>> the news servers each of us use allow before expiring it and then it
>> will be gone. Forget Google as a resource under your suggestion above
>> because Google doesn't archive binary groups.
>I don't pretend to know anything about binary groups: my intent was to
>defend current use of "dot amethyst", and I did so. Given the above and
>my defense, comp.binaries.cpm would not be an appropriate alternative.
If FL is sending binaries, then they should go to a binary group.
If he is sending text, then he should send the text to c.o.c.
You may be able to persuade him to put a flag in the subject
line so that those who do not wish to see the posts can filter
them out--something short and memorable like "DOCS"
or "FL DOC" or "ARCHIVE".
French Luser
> If one wanted old discussion that was actually about CP/M, one would
> look in the Google archives of net.micro.cpm and fa.info-cpm.
Personally, I had no knowledge of those old e-mail sources of info about CP/M.
If we had a real CP/M Foundation, it could (also) archive them. Since about
2000, when a patch enabling CP/M-86 to run on current "IBM Clowns", there has
been a rebirth of interest in CP/M, fuelled by the release of the source code
of all the 8-bit families of CP/M, and some non-"IBM Clowns" branches (CP/M
has amazingly many branches, DOSes, NOSes, and Graphics... But who knows
that?). As far as I know, the comp.os.cpm Newsgroup is the only place
remaining on Earth where serious discussions and projects about CP/M are being
done (This week-end, I have re-created the source code of my 20th Programming
Language... But I have not found, so far, any institution interested in
hosting and making available a collection of old Programmming Languages less
than 8 Kilo-Bytes... Especially if they are running under CP/M, not
Windoze/Linux...). It is just a pity that such a nice Operating System is
going to die, if only real hackers (in the old sense) can make anything, seen
as a hobby, in their spare time. For years, there has been a wish of a Web
browser: but it will be done ONLY if (at least) someone does it full time! So,
where to find a body which would pay to develop a Web version of a DOS created
in 1973? Real "not for profit" programming projects are more and more
rarities. Witness all those magazines dealing with Linux or Windoze: none of
them offer the project of creating anything: they are only advertisements, in
one form or another. (You, you said that the reason to remove c.o.c.a is to
ease the running of the Google algorithm. You are probably paid by Google to
remove no longer used Usenet Newsgroups.)
> Over the more recent times, actual discussion of the Amethyst components
> (Mince, Scribble, and BDS C) has occured in comp.os.cpm.
Hahaha! Yes, I am the culpit: Seeing so many discussions about a "good C
compiler" for CP/M-86, I stated the obvious: that the best C compiler ever
made for CP/M was BDS C and, upon seeing that people where still talking about
his compiler, Leor Zolman released the source code... (So, indirectly, I
released the source code of a 21th Programming Language!)
> One problem with a true binaries group would be that Google will not
> archive it. Maybe it doesn't fall in their mission statement.
Anyway, CP/M was made before binary: I have published for years programs on
the comp.os.cpm Newsgroup, simply using the tools that CP/M use to produce
programs: at the beginning, since there was no CP/M, Gary Kildall made all his
work on IBM and PDP-10 Mainframes, and the standard terminal was the ASR-33
Teletype, which could display only upper case letters, hence the format of the
Intel HEX and H86 file format, which enables me to publish (binary) programs
at will on the comp.os.cpm Newsgroup. Just search "HEX" and "H86" to see. And,
since I prefer a command line interface, I prefer a text interface (as far as
I know, the Newsgroups now also allows HTML coding. Since I made a WS4-to-HTML
File Converter, I could publish HTML pages directly from my 8-bit CP/M Plus
system).
Yours Sincerely,
"French Luser"
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
wrote in <44c4904d$0$872$ba4a...@news.orange.fr>:
>Jim wrote:
> ... (You, you said that the reason to remove c.o.c.a is to
>ease the running of the Google algorithm. You are probably paid by Google to
>remove no longer used Usenet Newsgroups.)
Luser, a man with your history of being devoted to a task that other
people find uninteresting should be able to sympathize with another
hobbyist, even though your interests differ.
Jim's work is a labor of love for Usenet as yours is for CP/M.
>Anyway, CP/M was made before binary: I have published for years programs on
>the comp.os.cpm Newsgroup, simply using the tools that CP/M use to produce
>programs ...
I recommend that you publish you work on comp.os.cpm, using some
key word in the subject that will allow people to filter out your posts
if they are of no interest to them.
People who want the CP/M materials you produce will then be able
to find them in the comp.os.cpm archives.
People who do not want to read your material will know by
examining the subject line that they do not want to read it.
AR Ogden
Standing To Comment....
WayBackWhen, I read and as I recall posted via P-Net-02. Yes,
the GBoLD was a good friend. I also knew Bill via BIX when it
was part of Byte Magazine... and I Moderated such things as it's
"cp.m" Conference. [ GBoLD == Greg ]
Lots of folks are gone and deeply missed as are systems.
Now as to c.o.c.a.
I can Not remember if there was ever a discussion of creating
a ~.longmsg M newsgroup of not. *IF* there was it was probably
Stomped On as not bloody likely to get near enough votes in a
Proposal to be worth the effort.
Because of that rather high barrier to NG creation in the B8,
the avenue found was to use comp.os.cpm.amethyst as the default
location for such posts... and that use has become a Tradition.
While I'm up here on this tin roof, I'll offer a Strong
Suggestion as to Use or the lack thereof:
NO objection in the targeted NewGroup OR those
related to it means it is UnUsed.
ANY objection means that it IS.
Those are subject to a re-visitation after the current pass is
finished.
There may well be propagation problems with any newsgroup
that have been hidden by the other problems of Usenet or
the spammers may well have made such a mess that no one
sticks around ... for long.
Which brings me to the True Problem that is probably NOT
solvable, that of the spammers and lack of anyone provably
Impartial to send out the cmsg to nuke them... or the ability
[read Will/Courage] to chop off those that are making the mess.
A R Ogden
s_dub...@yahoo.com
Tim Skirvin wrote:
> s_dub...@yahoo.com writes:
>
> >> No active newsgroup--however lightly it's used--is a target for
> >> removal.
>
> > value of usenet newsgroups. The archival value of usenet is one of its
> > most important aspects.
>
> relevant in practice. What news servers are both a) acting as long-term
> (15+ year) archives and b) honoring checkgroups to the extent that they
> would remove that archive if somebody removed the group?
>
> rmgroups don't remove content that old; that's covered by the
> expiration policies.
>
I respond to you [because you're the Chair] although I've read everyone
else's.
I see your point, I guess I've been depending on the graces of google,
and, obviously,
although I've been visiting c.o.c since 1998, first thru Deja, I'm
ignorant about usenets'
cooperative administrations. Herb Johnson has made all the points I
would've, already, but I quote his recent:
"
With "dot Amethyst", I tried to make the case that CP/M is a
RETROSPECTIVE and ARCHIVAL activity, not a development activity where
discussion naturally occurs.
"
I emphasize this to just make the quiet point that c.o.c isn't a chat
group in the normal sense, also realize that the long term members have
months, if not year's, worth of hours of participation, and as such,
vested interest in c.o.c, so therefore the RFD c.o.c.a receives the
concerned responce it does. And PARTICIPATION shouldn't be judged by
messages POSTED. There are many more lurkers which respond by direct
email to the poster for information, so postings volume is not a good
metric for actual use in the case of c.o.c. This is my direct
experience in regard to c.o.c.
No one here has made a good case for standing in the way of c.o.c.a's
removeal, nor do I.
There is a policy issue I'd like to address for consideration.
Considering the ebb and flow of discussion in c.o.c over the years, one
month's inactivity may be too strict. In searching policies:rmgroup
there is no timeframe of inactivity stated for a proponent to submit a
Group Removal RFD.
Also,
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=history:big-8
Lists a timeline which I have a question about:
2005 Old newsgroup creation system suspended. Eleven people tagged to
work on a new system.
March 2006 Big-8.org opens for business. skirv preserves one-syllable
tradition.
Oct. 1, 2006 Hasn't come yet.
Oct. 2, 2006 Death of Usenet. Film at 11.
What does this mean as to what is coming?
Thanks to all, and I hope I don't sound like I don't respect the task
you are all charged with.
Steve
> - Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
> Chair, Big-8 Management Board
> --
> http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
> http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
Jim Riley
>There is a policy issue I'd like to address for consideration.
>Considering the ebb and flow of discussion in c.o.c over the years, one
>month's inactivity may be too strict. In searching policies:rmgroup
>there is no timeframe of inactivity stated for a proponent to submit a
>Group Removal RFD.
In the case of the 31 former INET groups that I have proposed removing,
I have used traffic over the last 11 months (the expiration time for the
news server that I have access to. I also did some Google searches for
backup confirmation.
A year avoids any seasonal problems, such as those that associated with
the academic school years, or groups where interest may be seasonal,
such as groups for ice hockey, gardening, or seasonal affective disorder
(SAD).
In the case of the INET groups, my classification pretty much matches
one which Russ Allbery did in 1999. For the most part the groups have
not only been inactive over the past 11 months, but for the past 7 years
or more. In the case of comp.os.cpm.amethyst it appears to be the past
15 years.
Generally, I made a distinction between groups where there was no place
for traffic to go, and those where there was a logical place for
consolidation.
For example, I did not propose removal of comp.os.aos or comp.unix.cray
since those groups also function as the only Big 8 newsgroup for
discussion of Data General or Cray computers.
But I did propose removal of comp.lang.lisp.franz and comp.lang.lisp.x,
which could logically be discussed in comp.lang.lisp. This was also a
reason for removing comp.os.cpm.amethyst. In fact, far more discussion
of the Amethyst components, including Mince and BDS C have occured in
comp.os.cpm than has occurred in comp.os.cpm.amethyst.
>Also,
>http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=history:big-8
>
>Lists a timeline which I have a question about:
>
>2005 Old newsgroup creation system suspended. Eleven people tagged to
>work on a new system.
>March 2006 Big-8.org opens for business. skirv preserves one-syllable
>tradition.
>Oct. 1, 2006 Hasn't come yet.
>Oct. 2, 2006 Death of Usenet. Film at 11.
>
>What does this mean as to what is coming?
When Russ Allbery and Todd McComb tagged the 11 people to come up with a
new system, they also included a deadline of October 1, 2006, at which
time they (Allbery and McComb) would decide whether to accept the new
system, or do something else.
In March 2006, the 11 people (or those that remained) announced that
they were forming the B8MB and that they would be accepting newsgroup
proposals (additions and removals). Presumably, they expect that Russ
Allbery and Todd McComb to accept them permanently - a decision that
will be made on October 1, 2006.
The part about the day after is a joke.
--
Jim Riley
Gaby Chaudry
opinion, too.
I had some e-mail correspondence with Herb Johnson about this issue, so
it may be possible that I refer to things not said in here.
First of all, IMHO the c.o.c.a group has lost its right for existance
already many years ago. Using it as a storage for CP/M and CP/M related
documents doesn't change this. Changing its name e.g. to
"comp.os.cpm.docs" or something similar wouldn't change the amount of
spam, but would at least give it a right name and avoid further
questions about "what is amethyst??" (it's a lilac-colored gem, btw
;-))
Furthermore, I offered webspace to FL in the past as well, but never
got any answer (it seems that, for whatever reason, he just avoids
communication with me). I assume possible answers would have been
similar to those given by him in this thread, though. Herb is right
when he writes that google search will find his documents in the
c.o.c.a. group, but people prefer to have all at a glace on a webpage
instead of having to google for every single document. And - if
somebody looks for CP/M documents, he/she will look at the Unofficial
CP/M Web Site first, not Google Groups.
And French Luser, if you do not have the time to send documents to
whatever website, why is it that you find the time to write all these
long postings? Please excuse me if I exaggerate, but in the same time
that you post to this thread I would have set up a whole website....
Many people sent me documents in the past and not _they_ put them on
the website, but _I_ did it for them. Why can't you do the same?
Herb suggested that I copy FL's documents and put them on the site, but
I really don't have that additional time. And why should I, if he (FL)
could easily e-mail them to me?
Though my free webspace has gone tight in the meantime, some 30/40/50 K
docs aren't a real problem. We are not talking about megs, aren't we?
I wouldn't care if those documents weren't of any value for the public.
But they are and I really appreciate FL's work to retype them. It's
just his attitude to not chose the "normal" way of publishing them.
I assume neither me nor anybody else will change his attitude,
therefore I would propose to keep the group and rename it.
Meanwhile, I'd like to encourage others to keep on sending me CP/M
docs, sources and binaries. As for those that I put on Randy
McLaughlin's site: unfortunately, they are all gone for whatever
reason. Therefore I'd like to ask all those people that sent me large
files in the past two years to contact me and to check whether or not
their files went to gaby.s100-manuals.com. One of them was
"lastdri.zip", a file consisting of miscellaneous DRI disks containing
MP/M-86 code.
Unfortunately, I had a computer crash about a year ago which destroyed
not only a part of my e-mail correspondence (therefore I don't have any
idea who sent me what), but also parts of my offline website copy.
Therefore, you will have to repost your files and we'll have to find a
new place where to put them.
The thing with Randy's site is one more reason to keep on mirroring all
CP/M sites, including mine. Piergiorgio, do you also have mirrors of my
sites? If so, could you please e-mail me the links (e-mail address is
at the bottom)?
Btw, the fact that sites die, is not an argument to post to google, but
it should make people think about how important mirrors are!
I already wrote to Herb that there is absolutely no guarantee that I
can afford keeping my websites forever and ever. I'm sure most people
aren't aware of the fact that I do all the work in my private time,
spending my private money. Who knows how long this can go on? So please
mirror me!!
O.K. That's it from my side for the time being.
Bye, Gaby
--
Mrs. Gaby Chaudry
http://www.gaby.de/
mailto: ga...@gaby.de
Herb Johnson
> Meanwhile, I'd like to encourage others to keep on sending me CP/M
> docs, sources and binaries. As for those that I put on Randy
> McLaughlin's site: unfortunately, they are all gone for whatever
> reason. Therefore I'd like to ask all those people that sent me large
> files in the past two years to contact me and to check whether or not
> their files went to gaby.s100-manuals.com. One of them was
> "lastdri.zip", a file consisting of miscellaneous DRI disks containing
> MP/M-86 code.
> --
> Mrs. Gaby Chaudry
Randy has apparently not responded to a number of people, or not
posted, in some months. I'll start a seperate thread in c.o.c asking
about this.
Gaby and her many sites should certainly get support from our
colleagues. I encourage people to contact here and to offer assistance.
Gaby, if you can post on your site a list of lost files and some idea
of where they were on your site, or at S100-manuals.com, it may assist
others in restoring them to you. [Further discussion of this is
off-topic for this thread and should be continued as a new thread in
comp.os.cpm, IMHO.There is already a current thread on "CP/M archives"
in c.o.c.]