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

This is a discussion on RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst - CP/M ; In article , David Bostwick 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 81

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

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

    In article ,
    David Bostwick 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.


    It is not terminology I am using, so I'll say this again with the
    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.

    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.

    >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.

    >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.


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

    In article , stanley@shell.peak.org wrote:
    >In article ,
    >David Bostwick 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.

    >
    >It is not terminology I am using, so I'll say this again with the
    >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.


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

    *French Luser* wrote on Fri, 06-07-21 14:40:
    >455 file(s) 13 682 301 bytes


    That's tiny by web standards. If you pack it into chunks of about 2 MB
    each using a modern packer like .ZIP and send it to me NOT AT THIS
    ADDRESS I can put it all up. I can't promise longevity but I can easy
    accessibilty for as long as it lasts. This will make it quick and easy
    for others to put the stuff up too.

    Mail me and I tell you the address to use.

    >something or someone which would enable me to set up a Web site


    In Germany most internet access providers offer some webspace - huge
    and ample by your standards - as part of the package, which is how I
    came to have four at my disposal. Three of those are free of a monthly
    chrge and have a cheap dial-in rate. Computers you have or can find
    thrown away, a modem is cheap, and your cafe isn't free either.

    Axel


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

    In article ,
    David Bostwick wrote:
    >But no one has the right to ask you to propose a definition for your words.


    Of course they do. Please stop putting words in my mouth. If I had said
    something as odd as "no active newsgroup -- no matter how lightly used --
    would be considered for removal" and someone asked me what I meant, I'd
    tell them. If you doubt that, refer to a recent discussion about what
    I meant by "main".

    >Then why do you spend so much time arguing the definition of consensus, and
    >trying to persuade others that your definition is correct?


    A. It is not my definition. I'm using the definition that is both found
    in the online dictionary I use and in common use.

    B. Because it has a standard meaning and people are trying to define it
    to mean something that it does not.

    I do not see why you have such a problem with me asking Dave Sill how
    he defined the subjective terms "active newsgroup" and "lightly used",
    other than you are having a slow day at work and have no other enjoyments
    than jumping down my throat for things that I didn't say.

    >John, get a skin.


    David, get a life. Go harass someone else. Snap your cute little traps
    elsewhere.

    >Anyone who comments on your statements offends you, unless
    >they simply repeat your opinions.


    Please stop putting words in my mouth.

    >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.


    And yet you have nothing better to do than jump down my throat for things
    I didn't say. Do you think that saying you agree with me after bashing
    me for asking a simple question makes everything ok? Get a clue.

    >If that's jumping down your throat, I can see why you have trouble
    >with others' definitions.


    Did I say that agreeing with me was jumping down my throat? I think it
    is pretty clear from the context what I was referring to.




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

    On 19 Jul 2006 13:49:25 -0700, "Herb Johnson" wrote in
    <1153342163.907649.249440@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.

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

    On 20 Jul 2006 13:40:22 -0700, s_dubrovich@yahoo.com wrote in
    <1153428021.983299.304880@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).

    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.

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

    On 20 Jul 2006 13:32:46 -0700, "Herb Johnson" wrote in
    <1153427566.415350.204700@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.c om>:

    > ... 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.

    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.

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


    Axel Berger wrote:
    > *French Luser* wrote on Fri, 06-07-21 14:40:
    > >455 file(s) 13 682 301 bytes

    >
    > That's tiny by web standards. If you pack it into chunks of about 2 MB
    > each using a modern packer like .ZIP and send it to me NOT AT THIS
    > ADDRESS I can put it all up. I can't promise longevity but I can easy
    > accessibilty for as long as it lasts. This will make it quick and easy
    > for others to put the stuff up too.
    >
    > Mail me and I tell you the address to use.
    >
    > >something or someone which would enable me to set up a Web site

    >
    > In Germany most internet access providers offer some webspace - huge
    > and ample by your standards - as part of the package, which is how I
    > came to have four at my disposal. Three of those are free of a monthly
    > chrge and have a cheap dial-in rate. Computers you have or can find
    > thrown away, a modem is cheap, and your cafe isn't free either.
    >


    There's also a number of free web hosts where you could set up an
    account. Yahoo's GeoCities is one. I think you get 12 MB storage there.
    As for how long such a cached body of information might last there, I
    assume they retain the right to delete websites that appear to have
    been abandoned by their owners, but the day I browsed around GeoCities,
    it looked like they never do it. There are dead and half-built sites
    that have been left in place for years. If 12 MB isn't enough, you
    could split your content among various free hosts.

    The pressing question that comes to mind while reading this thread, in
    anticipation of the *possible* removal of amethyst, is whether the
    materials that are archived there ARE currently fully archived anywhere
    else. If not, is there any automated process that can copy all that
    content for archiving? Even if, as someone said, the archive would
    continue to exist if the NG itself were deactivated, it does not sound
    wise to trust any large corporation or profit-minded entity with the
    job of long-term archiving of anything. It only takes one decision that
    the content is no longer relevant or profit-producing, and it's gone.

    It should be archived in multiple places, in the hands of private
    individuals if necessary, so that deletion of one copy doesn't cause
    its permanent loss.


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

    Mr. Sill replies to my post point by point as below. I considered a
    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


    Dave Sill wrote:
    > "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



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

    I'm going to be brief to save time and fuss, and possibly to resolve
    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
    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"


    Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
    > On 20 Jul 2006 13:32:46 -0700, "Herb Johnson" wrote in
    > <1153427566.415350.204700@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.c om>:
    >
    > > ... 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.
    >
    > 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.



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

    On 22 Jul 2006 11:20:26 -0700, "Herb Johnson"
    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

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

    On 22 Jul 2006 10:47:10 -0700, "Herb Johnson"
    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

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

    On 22 Jul 2006 11:20:26 -0700, "Herb Johnson"
    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.


    Herb! What are you thinking!

    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.

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

    On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:21:19 GMT, Jim Riley
    wrote:

    >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.



    IMHO, French Luser should be able to publish his documents here in
    c.o.c and anyone not wanting to read them doesn't have to download the
    body. An occasional additional header won't kill anyone and the
    volume of material certainly isn't going to jeopardize retention time
    on anyone's news server.

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

    Jim Higgins wrote:
    > On 22 Jul 2006 11:20:26 -0700, "Herb Johnson"
    > 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.

    >
    > Herb! What are you thinking!
    >
    > 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

    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"


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

    Jim Riley wrote:
    > On 22 Jul 2006 10:47:10 -0700, "Herb Johnson"
    > 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?".....

    Herb Johnson

    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"


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

    On 23 Jul 2006 11:29:14 -0700, "Herb Johnson" wrote in
    <1153679354.260771.38960@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.co m>:

    >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".

    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.

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

    *steve24kw@yahoo.com* wrote on Sat, 06-07-22 14:11:
    >is whether the materials that are archived there ARE currently fully
    >archived anywhere else. If not, is there any automated process that can
    >copy all that content for archiving?


    As good as scouring the Usenet archives is, that was what my suggestion
    was all about. Our Loser has it all put well together and putting it up
    anywhere by anyone would make it very accessible to anyone, which is
    the first step towards diversity, the safest bet in the long run.

    Alas, in private mail he has again made it quite clear he wants things
    done the way and by the people he chooses, and neither i nor my way is
    the one.

    Does anyone amongst you run one of those bogus universities selling
    diplomas? That would fit his bill and put his bee in the bonnet to
    rest.

    Axel


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

    *Jim Higgins* wrote on Sun, 06-07-23 16:57:
    >and anyone not wanting to read them doesn't have to download the body.


    And I thought this was the one group where the concept of offline-
    readers was not unheard of.

    N.B: I just got over 300 messages in slightly over 3 minutes. The
    fastest lines possible will not be able to get that with all the
    overhead of calling and acknowledging each mail individually, as the IP
    protocol does. Coming in a single packed file those messages get that
    speed through and old 14.4 kbps modem and nearly that on 9.6 kbps CSD.


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


    French Luser wrote:
    >
    > 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.


    Well, i have space and bandwidth available here. It's a corporate site
    but there is space freely available (at my discretion at least).
    Feel free to contact me for this on the c.o.c or privately as you
    prefer.

    Piergiorgio


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