RFD: rec.radio.amateur reorganization [discussion thr
Jeffrey D. Angus
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
> REORGANIZATION OF REC.RADIO.AMATEUR
Don't do it. The more groups you create, the more groups get cross-posted
because people are either a) afraid their message won't be read or b) they
don't understand how to use thier newsgroup software.
I can understand rec.radio.amateur.policy as a way of taking the "You're
wrong, I'm right" flamewars into an area people can avoid.
I can understand rec.radio.amateur.info as a way of putting the information
(such as the faqs) into an area where those that feel they already know
everything do not have to see them.
I can understand rec.radio.amateur.packet as a location devoid of the
morse/morris wars. And where the 'real hams' don't have to suscribe to no-
coder orientated things like machines rather than people talking to each
other.
But let us not sub-divide rec.radio.amateur.misc for the benefit of those
who want to further narrow thier view of the hobby.
Conclusion, it ain't broke so don't fix it.
netcom!bongo!jan...@skyld.tele.com "Als ik Kan", Gustav Stickley
US Mail: PO Box 4425 Carson, CA 90749-4425 1 (310) 324-6080
br...@amdcl2.amd.com
>
> Don't do it. The more groups you create, the more groups get cross-posted
> because people are either a) afraid their message won't be read or b) they
> don't understand how to use thier newsgroup software.
>
> I can understand rec.radio.amateur.policy as a way of taking the "You're
> wrong, I'm right" flamewars into an area people can avoid.
>
> I can understand rec.radio.amateur.info as a way of putting the information
> (such as the faqs) into an area where those that feel they already know
> everything do not have to see them.
>
> I can understand rec.radio.amateur.packet as a location devoid of the
> morse/morris wars. And where the 'real hams' don't have to suscribe to no-
> coder orientated things like machines rather than people talking to each
> other.
>
> But let us not sub-divide rec.radio.amateur.misc for the benefit of those
> who want to further narrow thier view of the hobby.
>
> Conclusion, it ain't broke so don't fix it.
I'm not sure I follow this logic. r.r.a.policy was created to shunt
off the flame wars, but it never did that -- the flame wars are still
rampant in both policy and misc. Note, however, that the policy group
does contain real discussion on policy issues (which are generally not
*discussed* in the misc group). In other words, policy *has* shunted
a lot of the legitimate discussion of policy issues out of misc.
The info group did not unload the faqs, etc. from misc. A failure in
my opinion. :-(
As you say yourself, the packet group is a very successful sub-group.
I would attribute this to the narrower focus that does not support
flame fests as well as misc does.
History has shown that you can't force the idiots into a group by
themselves, but you can divide topics to the point where the idiots
are no longer baited by the large audience.
I don't view the possible division of r.r.a.misc as a "narrowing" or
division of the radio hobby. It's more like providing a good book
with an index or a table of contents. I didn't think that my old
physics text was broken simply because it was divided into chapters!
If someone wants to concentrate on only one aspect of ham radio, then
no division or consolidation of groups will change that.
Brian McMinn, N5PSS brian....@amd.com
Mark G. Salyzyn
>In other words, policy *has* shunted
>a lot of the legitimate discussion of policy issues out of misc.
Good point, so .policy proves it can work
>The info group did not unload the faqs, etc. from misc. A failure in
>my opinion. :-(
This was NOT what the group was for (although, there are administrative
side effects that allow it to happen, ask your admin to enter
!rec.radio.info,rec.radio in the sys file ...) There were far too many
voices demanding that the group be a concentrator, not a a deflector
(albeit, r.r.shortwave users wanted cross-posting, r.r.a.misc users
were divided). No one, until now, suggested that the FAQs be removed
from the groups (that would be silly, think about it, where are the
new users going to be?, the experienced users can do a !r.r.info or
kill file since the FAQ posters remain the same, day-in and day-out).
The bulletins, on the other hand, a case could be made ...
>As you say yourself, the packet group is a very successful sub-group.
>I would attribute this to the narrower focus that does not support
>flame fests as well as misc does.
After (If?) the proposal goes through, you will see `take this flame-fest
to r.r.a.misc where it belongs!' :-)
>It's more like providing a good book with an index or a table of contents.
Wow, I *like* this analogy!
>If someone wants to concentrate on only one aspect of ham radio, then
>no division or consolidation of groups will change that.
True, where there is a will, there is a way, but ... the will is easier
to appease if there is a division.
Preaching to the converted, Ciao -- Mark
Mark G. Salyzyn
> Don't do it. The more groups you create, the more groups get cross-posted
> because people are either a) afraid their message won't be read or b) they
> don't understand how to use thier newsgroup software.
You are calling us idiots you know, and if not directed at *us*, what
about people like my wife (completely computer illiterate) who understands
these concepts and can hit the '?' key when she doesn't ...
She (VE6MFB) stopped reading rec.radio.amateur.misc a long time ago, and
finds alt.tasteless a more civilized group ...
> I can understand rec.radio.amateur.policy as a way of taking the "You're
> wrong, I'm right" flamewars into an area people can avoid.
No, it is a place made for discussing policy issues, the flamewars still
are in *.misc ...
> I can understand rec.radio.amateur.packet as a location devoid of the
> morse/morris wars. And where the 'real hams' don't have to suscribe to no-
> coder orientated things like machines rather than people talking to each
> other.
? Sounds like you support a division of r.r.a.misc now, as this is what
should happen with well thought out groups, such as Ians!
> But let us not sub-divide rec.radio.amateur.misc for the benefit of those
> who want to further narrow thier view of the hobby.
< minor flame >
I have news for you, I saw you bashing *us*, my wife, no-coders and packet
users in your note, you just alienated another set of amateur radio
enthusiasts! if you are so peaches and cream and want us all together
in a nice family, I'd advise you to practice what you preach!
< flame off >
Now to the point, one can `subscribe' to all the groups, ALL news readers
are capable of reading articles that are cross posted, in their primary
group only. You do NOT see articles twice (unless a user has broken
netiquite and multi-posted) and you can see everything! I do not see
that you are hurt by this progress!
> Conclusion, it ain't broke so don't fix it.
Wrong! the visible complaints are but a tip of the iceberg (I think the
vote will show that), I can count on my fingers and toes the number of people
turned off by *.misc this month that are *visible*. I pity the listserver user
that gets mail bombed with 250 articles/day on topics he has no interest in,
and certainly *any* news reader (threaded too) that has to discard so much,
and read so little.
Ciao, 73 de VE6MGS/Mark -sk-
Ben Coleman
> Now to the point, one can `subscribe' to all the groups, ALL news readers
> are capable of reading articles that are cross posted, in their primary
> group only. You do NOT see articles twice (unless a user has broken
> netiquite and multi-posted) and you can see everything! I do not see
> that you are hurt by this progress!
Not everyone reads news on a Unix box. I'm running POW(Plain Ol' Waffle),
and on my machine, cross-posted articles get read multiple times, in each
cross-posted newsgroup. I'm personally in favor of a split, but the
argument that no one will read cross-posted messages more than once doesn't
wash.
Ben
+---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Ben Coleman NJ8J | "All that is not eternal is |
| Packet: NJ8J@W4QO.#EAL.#ATL.GA.USA.NA | eternally irrelevant." |
| Internet: b...@nj8j.atl.ga.us | |
| or b...@nj8j.blackwlf.mese.com | C. S. Lewis |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jon Gefaell
>ma...@ve6mgs.ampr.org (Mark G. Salyzyn) writes:
>
>> Now to the point, one can `subscribe' to all the groups, ALL news readers
>> are capable of reading articles that are cross posted, in their primary
>> group only. You do NOT see articles twice (unless a user has broken
>> netiquite and multi-posted) and you can see everything! I do not see
>> that you are hurt by this progress!
>
>Not everyone reads news on a Unix box. I'm running POW(Plain Ol' Waffle),
>and on my machine, cross-posted articles get read multiple times, in each
>cross-posted newsgroup. I'm personally in favor of a split, but the
>argument that no one will read cross-posted messages more than once doesn't
>wash.
It is an oft repeated maxim, and one that bears repeating again:
Get your software fixed.
--
These opinions may not be unique, and they may not express the views of U.Va.
______________________________________________________
| Jon Gefaell, Computer Systems Engineer \ /___ | SILENCE = DEATH
| Security and Technology Planning R&D \ / / | Hate is *NOT*
| I.T.C. Administrative Computing Services \ / / | a Family Value!
| The University, UVA. Carruthers Hall \/\ / | ---------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\/~~~~~ 73 de KD4CQY
Brian Kantor
>Not everyone reads news on a Unix box. I'm running POW(Plain Ol' Waffle),
>and on my machine, cross-posted articles get read multiple times, in each
>cross-posted newsgroup.
I don't believe that we have to take the behaviour of broken software
into account when determining the policies of the network. From this
persons description of the process, POW doesn't obey the standard
paradigms of Usenet software, and so its behaviour does not count.
- Brian
Ian Kluft
>In article <HaFL2B...@nj8j.blackwlf.mese.com> b...@nj8j.blackwlf.mese.com (Ben Coleman) writes:
>>Not everyone reads news on a Unix box. I'm running POW(Plain Ol' Waffle),
>>and on my machine, cross-posted articles get read multiple times, in each
>>cross-posted newsgroup. I'm personally in favor of a split, but the
>>argument that no one will read cross-posted messages more than once doesn't
>>wash.
>
>It is an oft repeated maxim, and one that bears repeating again:
>Get your software fixed.
He can't. There aren't many ways to do uucp, news, and mail on a PC running
DOS. (If you've got a 386 or above, I'd suggest looking into Linux - it's
POSIX and it's free. See comp.os.linux for details.) But on a 286 or below,
waffle is pretty much the only real choice. So, users can't fix it - they
pretty much have to bear with what the author(s) distribute.
It isn't ideal. Its deficiencies are why they are called "waffle irons" by
Unix users. But it's a way to get news and mail if nothing else is available.
However, the NetNews community is not going to lower its expectations
because of waffle's appearance on the scene with the inability to handle news
articles according to the de-facto standards. So, while it isn't right to
say "Get your software fixed" to a waffle user, neither is it correct to
change any proposals just for waffle. At some point, you will need to send
input to the authors saying you want proper handling of cross-posted articles
because they are a reality - and in the cases they were designed for, they are
even useful. Once they fix it, the problem will be solved for all of us.
--
Ian Kluft KD6EUI PP-ASEL Amdahl Corporation, Open Systems Development
ikl...@uts.amdahl.com Santa Clara, CA
[disclaimer: any opinions expressed are mine only... not those of my employer]
Jon Gefaell
>
>je...@livia.acs.Virginia.EDU (Jon Gefaell) writes:
>>
>>It is an oft repeated maxim, and one that bears repeating again:
>>Get your software fixed.
>
>He can't. There aren't many ways to do uucp, news, and mail on a PC running
>DOS. (If you've got a 386 or above, I'd suggest looking into Linux - it's
>POSIX and it's free. See comp.os.linux for details.) But on a 286 or below,
>waffle is pretty much the only real choice. So, users can't fix it - they
>pretty much have to bear with what the author(s) distribute.
>
>It isn't ideal. Its deficiencies are why they are called "waffle irons" by
>Unix users. But it's a way to get news and mail if nothing else is available.
>
>However, the NetNews community is not going to lower its expectations
>because of waffle's appearance on the scene with the inability to handle news
>articles according to the de-facto standards. So, while it isn't right to
>say "Get your software fixed" to a waffle user, neither is it correct to
>change any proposals just for waffle. At some point, you will need to send
>input to the authors saying you want proper handling of cross-posted articles
>because they are a reality - and in the cases they were designed for, they are
>even useful. Once they fix it, the problem will be solved for all of us.
Uhm, with all due respect, doesn't that mean 'Get your software fixed' ???
I understand the fellow probably isn't about to get out the C compiler
and start fixing things, but if he wants things to work right...
Ian Kluft
>Uhm, with all due respect, doesn't that mean 'Get your software fixed' ???
Yes, I'm just noting that he's saying "get your software fixed" to someone
who probably can't do anything about it. Rather than antagonize the user,
encourage them to send input to the author. That approach will probably
yield better results.
I'm sure we'll hear more complaints from Waffle users. They need to realize
that they don't have a firm foundation for their arguments. It really is
time to push the author(s) to fix it to handle cross-posted articles like other
news systems. It isn't in any RFC but the precedent has been strongly set
by Unix's dominance of the Net - cross-posted articles should be stored only
once in the spool, read only once by the user, and transmitted only once to
neighbor sites.
One thing that may make more or less of a difference here is whether waffle
sources are available or if it's only distributed in binary form. I personally
don't need an answer to that - I have UTS (SVR4) on mainframes at work and
Linux on my 386 box at home.
Ben Coleman
> However, the NetNews community is not going to lower its expectations
> because of waffle's appearance on the scene with the inability to handle news
> articles according to the de-facto standards. So, while it isn't right to
> say "Get your software fixed" to a waffle user, neither is it correct to
> change any proposals just for waffle. At some point, you will need to send
> input to the authors saying you want proper handling of cross-posted articles
> because they are a reality - and in the cases they were designed for, they ar
> even useful. Once they fix it, the problem will be solved for all of us.
Notice that I wasn't really calling for a reduction of expectations - I'm in
favor of a split in rec.radio.amateur.*, even though it may result in me
seeing some messages more than once - by now I'm used to hitting the 'n' key
when I recognize that I've seen a message before. And for that matter,
sometimes the second or third reading provokes a response that the first
reading didn't.
There's a difference between saying that only readers that conform to the
de-facto standard will be taken into consideration and saying that there
exist no readers(or other news-reading mechanisms) that do not conform to
that standard(which is essentially what the post I originally responded to
said). Waffle is not the only non-conforming mechanism. Sites that gateway
USENET into Fidonet(or make newsgroups available via Fidonet Technology)
will turn cross-posted messages into multiple copies. The same is true for
newsgroup-to-mailing-list gateways(which, I note, _is_ a consideration in
the rec.radio.amateur.* reorganization). I'm sure there are other examples
that I don't know about.
For single-user Waffle sites, there may be a solution, as someone recently
posted a program that will go through a Waffle news spool and delete all but
one copy of cross-posted messages. For multi-user sites, that isn't
appropriate, as users will probably not be subscribing to all newsgroupss.
I may give it a try and see if it works out on my under-powered system(a
10-Mhz V20 XT clone).
Ben Coleman
> I understand the fellow probably isn't about to get out the C compiler
> and start fixing things, but if he wants things to work right...
Getting out the C compiler wouldn't be a whole lot of help, as I don't have
source, and I currently have better uses for the $90 it would take to get
it(not to mention the upgrade I would need to run the C compiler in the
first place).