RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst - CP/M

This is a discussion on RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst - CP/M ; On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:56:00 +0200, Axel_Berger@b.maus.de (Axel Berger) wrote: >*Jim Riley* wrote on Wed, 06-07-19 01:35: >>I don't see why French Luser's longish posts of source code and >>documents could not be posted to comp.os.cpm. > >Let's see. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 81

Thread: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

  1. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:56:00 +0200, Axel_Berger@b.maus.de (Axel Berger)
    wrote:

    >*Jim Riley* wrote on Wed, 06-07-19 01:35:
    >>I don't see why French Luser's longish posts of source code and
    >>documents could not be posted to comp.os.cpm.

    >
    >Let's see. You are not a regular of the group I presume, as I don't
    >recall having seen you here. We, all of us, have come to a consensus we
    >can all happily live with.


    What are the specifics of this consensus?

    >I think Herb put it very well. Maybe there is something in Michael C
    >Finn's suggestion, and maybe in the spirit of leaving unbroken stuff
    >well alone there isn't, but the reason for taking away some old men's
    >enjoyment with which they harm noone escapes me.


    What is this enjoyment that would be taken away?

    Is it discussing CP/M? How would the removal of comp.os.cpm.amethyst
    affect that discussion?

    Is it not having French Luser post to comp.os.cpm? If he did, how would
    that impact your discussion of CP/M?

    It is unthinkable that your enjoyment comes from hassling some other
    person who posts CP/M documentation that he has typed by hand from print
    copies.
    --
    Jim Riley

  2. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst


    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


  3. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    "Herb Johnson" 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.

    > 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

  4. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    Dave Sill writes:

    > 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.

    - Tim Skirvin (skirv@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 < <*>

  5. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    Mr Riley, et al, ask a number of questions, simply because they has
    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.)

    Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA
    web site
    domain mirror
    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"


  6. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst


    Dave Sill wrote:
    > "Herb Johnson" 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.

    > > 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



  7. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    s_dubrovich@yahoo.com writes:

    >> 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.

    - Tim Skirvin (skirv@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 < <*>

  8. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    In article , Dave Sill wrote:
    >No active newsgroup--however lightly it's used--is a target for
    >removal.


    These arguments are going to continue as long as those in charge keep
    using such subjective terminology to refer to what they are doing.

    What is an "active" newsgroup?
    What is "lightly" in terms of newsgroup usage?

    >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?

    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. After all, having a human waste hours looking
    for a group is a more serious waste of time than the fraction of a
    microsecond that a CPU uses to skip one line of text.

  9. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    In article ,
    Tim Skirvin wrote:
    > rmgroups don't remove content that old; that's covered by the
    >expiration policies.


    How does one tell his news server to access a group that it thinks
    does not exist?


  10. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    s_dubrovich@yahoo.com wrote:
    > 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.


  11. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    stanley@shell.peak.org wrote:

    > 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/

  12. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    On 20 Jul 2006 13:40:22 -0700, s_dubrovich@yahoo.com wrote:

    >Dave Sill wrote:
    >> "Herb Johnson" 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

  13. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:21:22 -0400, Dave Sill wrote:

    >"Herb Johnson" 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

  14. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    On 20 Jul 2006 13:32:46 -0700, "Herb Johnson"
    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

  15. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    > My name is Tim Skirvin; I'm a system administrator at the University of Illinois, living in Champaign.

    Since you are working in a American University, maybe you are part of
    the solution?

    Would you mind asking your University if they would be interested in
    setting up a CP/M department, which would (among other things) keep
    online anything CP/M-relevant?

    Yours Sincerely,
    "French Luser"

    The last time I posted a list of only my WS4 (WordStar Version 4.0 --
    the standard word-processor under CP/M -- Several years ago, I made a
    WS4-to-HTML File Converter, so that CP/M fans can produce HTML Web
    pages directly on their 8-bit system.) files, I got the following
    (this is the end of my previous post, about one year ago):

    Total ("WS4 Files of French Luser")
    =====

    455 file(s) 13 682 301 bytes

    (About 6,841 pages (excluding the papers of Gary Kildall) when
    printed by WS4 on European A4 paper (which is 12" long).)

    (I also have the WS4 files of a "Journal of CP/M Plus Research"
    that I produced after the CP/M User Group (UK) closed. I made 10
    issues of 60 pages, or 600 pages. 6,841 + 600 = 7,441 pages...)

    (Of course, those are only the doc files. You will notice that
    almost no source code files are listed. After about 20 years of
    CP/M programming, I estimate that I must have produced as much
    source files.)

    (I don't count the COBOL programs that I made when I was a COBOL
    programmer on IBM Mainframes, before discovering CP/M.)

    As usual, I am searching for something or someone which would
    enable me to set up a Web site (thanks to time and money) dealing
    with the above CP/M stuff.

    Respond to the Newsgroup.


    EOF

  16. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    In article , stanley@shell.peak.org wrote:
    >In article , Dave Sill wrote:
    >>No active newsgroup--however lightly it's used--is a target for
    >>removal.

    >
    >These arguments are going to continue as long as those in charge keep
    >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?

  17. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    "Herb Johnson" writes:

    > 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

  18. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    In article ,
    David Bostwick wrote:
    >In article , stanley@shell.peak.org wrote:
    >>In article , Dave Sill wrote:
    >>>No active newsgroup--however lightly it's used--is a target for
    >>>removal.

    >>
    >>These arguments are going to continue as long as those in charge keep
    >>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?


    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.


  19. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    In article , stanley@shell.peak.org wrote:
    >In article ,
    >David Bostwick wrote:
    >>In article , stanley@shell.peak.org wrote:
    >>>In article , Dave Sill wrote:
    >>>>No active newsgroup--however lightly it's used--is a target for
    >>>>removal.
    >>>
    >>>These arguments are going to continue as long as those in charge keep
    >>>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?

    >
    >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. 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.

  20. Re: RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    stanley@shell.peak.org writes:

    > 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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast