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

This is a discussion on RFD: Remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst - CP/M ; REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the following Usenet newsgroup: remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst RATIONALE: remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst This is one of a set of 31 low-traffic former INET groups proposed for removal. Please see ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 81

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

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

    REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

    This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
    Usenet newsgroup:

    remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    RATIONALE: remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    This is one of a set of 31 low-traffic former INET groups proposed for
    removal. Please see the article

    "2nd RFD: Remove low traffic former INET groups"

    posted to news.announce.newgroups and news.groups for a more general
    discussion.

    ************************************************** ********************************

    RATIONALE: remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    The newsgroup line is:

    |comp.os.cpm.amethyst Discussion of Amethyst, CP/M-80 software package.

    comp.os.cpm.amethyst has had no on-topic messages in the past 11 months.
    Any discussion specific to Amethyst can take place on comp.os.cpm.

    ************************************************** ********************************

    PROCEDURE:

    The full (draft) group removal procedure is documented here:

    http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...licies:rmgroup

    Those who wish to comment on this request to remove this newsgroup
    should subscribe to news.groups and participate in the relevant threads
    in that newsgroup.

    To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
    news.groups.

    All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.

    If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the discussion
    may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken to ensure
    that all discussion appears in news.groups as well.


    DISTRIBUTION:

    news.announce.newgroups (omitted)
    news.groups
    comp.os.cpm.amethyst
    comp.os.cpm


    PROPONENT:

    Jim Riley

    CHANGE HISTORY:

    2006-07-08 Original RFD.
    --
    Jim Riley

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

    [comp.os.cpm added to cross-post]

    Please note: It is comp.os.cpm.amethyst proposed for removal, not
    comp.os.cpm.

    On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:07:06 +0200, French Luser
    wrote:

    >Jim Riley wrote:
    >
    >>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
    >>Usenet newsgroup:
    >>
    >>remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    >
    >Oh, ****! Where am I going to publish my documents?

    --
    Jim Riley

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

    (note: this msg is cross posted.)

    > On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:07:06 +0200, French Luser
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Jim Riley wrote:
    > >
    > >>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
    > >>Usenet newsgroup:
    > >>
    > >>remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst

    > >
    > >Oh, ****! Where am I going to publish my documents?

    > --
    > Jim Riley


    Jim Riley wrote:
    >
    > Please note: It is comp.os.cpm.amethyst proposed for removal, not
    > comp.os.cpm.


    Mr.Riley:

    The person known as "French Luser" is a French person who, for several
    years, has "provided" documents and source code programs from or about
    CP/M. This is the operating system written by Gary Kildall in the
    mid-1970's which was the premier OS for microcomputers of the era. The
    CP/M community is still modestly active, as a review of comp.os.cpm
    traffic will show. Since long posts of source code or documents are
    discouraged in newsgroups, "Luser" has chosen to use a disused NG,
    namely "dot amethyst", for such posts., as any review of that NG will
    show.

    While "Luser" sometimes has his own priorities, in general he is
    considered by most to be an asset to the CP/M community; his CP/M
    knowledge is considerable; and his posted documents are of interest and
    of value. He chooses this route to distribute such materials for
    reasons which, in part, are a consequence of his circumstances and some
    of the limitations of Internet service in France. All of this is
    arguable; but most would agree he does much good and little if any
    harm.

    Consequently, I SUPPORT my colleague and I OPPOSE removal of the
    newsgroup comp.os.cpm.amethyst.

    Herb Johnson

    **I'LL BE UNAVAILABLE FOR JULY 2006 - email replies delayed**

    Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA
    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"


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


    "Jim Riley" wrote in message
    news:Zk5vg.1024$bP5.256@newsread1.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
    > [comp.os.cpm added to cross-post]
    >
    > Please note: It is comp.os.cpm.amethyst proposed for removal, not
    > comp.os.cpm.
    >
    > On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:07:06 +0200, French Luser
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Jim Riley wrote:
    > >
    > >>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
    > >>Usenet newsgroup:
    > >>
    > >>remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst
    > >>comp.os.cpm.amethyst has had no on-topic messages in the past 11 months.
    > >>Any discussion specific to Amethyst can take place on comp.os.cpm.

    > >
    > >Oh, ****! Where am I going to publish my documents?

    > --
    > Jim Riley


    [comp.os.cpm.amethysy added to crosspost]

    I would prefer to see comp.os.cpm.amethyst restructured to
    comp.os.cpm.binary and its charter would be for publication of small program
    code and reconstruction of various manuals and historical items where the
    posting length exceeds what most posters consider reasonable for the text
    newsgroup comp.os.cpm.

    I am familiar with some of "French Luser's" efforts in reconstructing and
    publishing various historical printed publications into electronic format
    and he has made efficient use of the old group comp.os.cpm.amethyst rather
    than posting a large file to the text group comp.os.cpm.

    While there are a handful of web sites that have on-line download of older
    material, there a just a few that would accept new submissions and release
    them timely for public viewing or download. A binary newsgroup would still
    have some benefit for CP/M users.

    Ideally, if the group is kept but without the amethyst name, it should be a
    moderated group to avoid spam and keep submissions on-topic. Perhaps a one
    year trial and if it is not used according to an appropriate charter, it can
    then be dropped for low-traffic/non-use.



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

    On 18 Jul 2006 08:39:28 -0700, "Herb Johnson"
    wrote:

    >(note: this msg is cross posted.)
    >
    >> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:07:06 +0200, French Luser
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Jim Riley wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
    >> >>Usenet newsgroup:
    >> >>
    >> >>remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst
    >> >
    >> >Oh, ****! Where am I going to publish my documents?

    >> --
    >> Jim Riley

    >
    >Jim Riley wrote:
    >>
    >> Please note: It is comp.os.cpm.amethyst proposed for removal, not
    >> comp.os.cpm.

    >
    >Mr.Riley:
    >
    >The person known as "French Luser" is a French person who, for several
    >years, has "provided" documents and source code programs from or about
    >CP/M. This is the operating system written by Gary Kildall in the
    >mid-1970's which was the premier OS for microcomputers of the era. The
    >CP/M community is still modestly active, as a review of comp.os.cpm
    >traffic will show. Since long posts of source code or documents are
    >discouraged in newsgroups, "Luser" has chosen to use a disused NG,
    >namely "dot amethyst", for such posts., as any review of that NG will
    >show.


    Over the past 11 months, the only posts that I see in
    comp.os.cpm.amethyst are:

    "FS large lot of equipment"

    Which was advertising "a huge collection of vintage equipment I want to
    sell", which apparently selected comp.os.cpm.amethyst because some of
    the computers used CP/M, or alternatively, persons interested in CP/M
    would interested in the old equipment.

    And:

    "Microsoft " SoftCard " CP/M Reference Manual"

    Which could as easily been posted to comp.os.cpm.

    I don't see why French Luser's longish posts of source code and
    documents could not be posted to comp.os.cpm. There has only been about
    one new thread per day over the past month.
    --
    Jim Riley

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

    [comp.os.cpm added to X-post]

    On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:00:11 GMT, "Michael C Finn"
    wrote:

    >"Jim Riley" wrote in message
    >news:Zk5vg.1024$bP5.256@newsread1.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
    >> [comp.os.cpm added to cross-post]
    >>
    >> Please note: It is comp.os.cpm.amethyst proposed for removal, not
    >> comp.os.cpm.
    >>
    >> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:07:06 +0200, French Luser
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Jim Riley wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
    >> >>Usenet newsgroup:
    >> >>
    >> >>remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst
    >> >>comp.os.cpm.amethyst has had no on-topic messages in the past 11 months.
    >> >>Any discussion specific to Amethyst can take place on comp.os.cpm.
    >> >
    >> >Oh, ****! Where am I going to publish my documents?


    >[comp.os.cpm.amethysy added to crosspost]
    >
    >I would prefer to see comp.os.cpm.amethyst restructured to
    >comp.os.cpm.binary and its charter would be for publication of small program
    >code and reconstruction of various manuals and historical items where the
    >posting length exceeds what most posters consider reasonable for the text
    >newsgroup comp.os.cpm.
    >
    >I am familiar with some of "French Luser's" efforts in reconstructing and
    >publishing various historical printed publications into electronic format
    >and he has made efficient use of the old group comp.os.cpm.amethyst rather
    >than posting a large file to the text group comp.os.cpm.
    >
    >While there are a handful of web sites that have on-line download of older
    >material, there a just a few that would accept new submissions and release
    >them timely for public viewing or download. A binary newsgroup would still
    >have some benefit for CP/M users.
    >
    >Ideally, if the group is kept but without the amethyst name, it should be a
    >moderated group to avoid spam and keep submissions on-topic. Perhaps a one
    >year trial and if it is not used according to an appropriate charter, it can
    >then be dropped for low-traffic/non-use.


    A comp.binaries.cpm might be feasible, but it definitely would have to
    moderated. comp.binaries.apple2 was just removed because it was
    unmoderated, and at times had as much volume as the rest of the 2400
    groups in the Big 8 combined, very little of which had any connection to
    the AppleII.

    It would probably be expected that the moderator of a comp.binaries.cpm
    maintain an FTP archive of articles. Generally, any group with
    "binaries" in the name has an extremely short expiration time, even if
    the volume is very light by 2006 standards. I presume that most CP/M
    binaries are relatively small, simply because they had to fit on a
    floppy and run on a machine with limited memory.
    --
    Jim Riley

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

    Jim Riley wrote:
    > On 18 Jul 2006 08:39:28 -0700, "Herb Johnson"
    > wrote:
    >
    >> (note: this msg is cross posted.)
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:07:06 +0200, French Luser
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Jim Riley wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
    >>>>> Usenet newsgroup:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst
    >>>> Oh, ****! Where am I going to publish my documents?
    >>> --
    >>> Jim Riley

    >> Jim Riley wrote:
    >>> Please note: It is comp.os.cpm.amethyst proposed for removal, not
    >>> comp.os.cpm.

    >> Mr.Riley:
    >>
    >> The person known as "French Luser" is a French person who, for several
    >> years, has "provided" documents and source code programs from or about
    >> CP/M. This is the operating system written by Gary Kildall in the
    >> mid-1970's which was the premier OS for microcomputers of the era. The
    >> CP/M community is still modestly active, as a review of comp.os.cpm
    >> traffic will show. Since long posts of source code or documents are
    >> discouraged in newsgroups, "Luser" has chosen to use a disused NG,
    >> namely "dot amethyst", for such posts., as any review of that NG will
    >> show.

    >
    > Over the past 11 months, the only posts that I see in
    > comp.os.cpm.amethyst are:
    >
    > "FS large lot of equipment"
    >
    > Which was advertising "a huge collection of vintage equipment I want to
    > sell", which apparently selected comp.os.cpm.amethyst because some of
    > the computers used CP/M, or alternatively, persons interested in CP/M
    > would interested in the old equipment.
    >
    > And:
    >
    > "Microsoft " SoftCard " CP/M Reference Manual"
    >
    > Which could as easily been posted to comp.os.cpm.
    >
    > I don't see why French Luser's longish posts of source code and
    > documents could not be posted to comp.os.cpm. There has only been about
    > one new thread per day over the past month.


    But the point is, the group is being used - and even vaguely on topic.
    _You_ may not see why FL cannot post to comp.os.cpm, but the _users_ of
    c.o.c and c.o.c.amethyst seem to be happy with the situation.

    Has the Politburo now decided that they are the ones to decide whether a
    particular group is "worthy" of being kept? Do the users of the groups
    in question have no say? ISTM that if there are _any_ users of a group
    which oppose its removal, it should be kept - after all, it is in some
    way (however small) contributing to discussion - which is what (I always
    thought) USENET was supposed to be all about.

    --
    2006 Otaku (at) troll4fun (dot) com

    I'm not an Iranian!! I voted for Dianne Feinstein!!

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

    Otaku writes:

    > ISTM that if there are _any_ users of a group which oppose its removal,
    > it should be kept - after all, it is in some way (however small)
    > contributing to discussion - which is what (I always thought) USENET was
    > supposed to be all about.


    I'm curious, how do you reconcile this with your stance that it
    should be difficult to create groups? Should just one user be enough to
    make a group, as well?

    My attitude on this: if there is traffic and a user-base, I don't
    want to remove (most) any group. If there isn't, it shouldn't be a huge
    amount of work to remove the group; but if this turns out to be a mistake,
    we should re-create the group quickly and with a minimum of pain for
    whoever it is that points out the mistake. And if such a removal system
    works, then I'll feel much more comfortable about making "leaps of faith"
    with newsgroup creation, which is, IMO, an important goal.

    - Tim Skirvin (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 < <*>

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

    On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:50:47 -1000, Otaku wrote in
    :

    > ... Has the Politburo now decided that they are the ones to decide whether a
    >particular group is "worthy" of being kept?


    Yes.

    >Do the users of the groups
    >in question have no say?


    Users have a say. That's why there is a Request for Discussion (RFD)
    that has been circulated to all of the groups that have been proposed
    for removal.

    >ISTM that if there are _any_ users of a group
    >which oppose its removal, it should be kept - after all, it is in some
    >way (however small) contributing to discussion - which is what (I always
    >thought) USENET was supposed to be all about.


    If there is on-topic discussion in the group, that seems to be
    a good reason to keep the group.

    The argument to keep the amethyst group seems odd to me.
    comp.os.cpm users seem to have learned to look there for
    old cpm documents.

    Perhaps someone should write an RFD for comp.os.cpm.documents
    (moderated).

    Marty
    --
    Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
    The B8MB is a work in progress.
    See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

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


    Otaku wrote:

    > Has the Politburo now decided that they are the ones to decide whether a
    > particular group is "worthy" of being kept? Do the users of the groups


    Just in case the "politburo" decide to drop the ng, a question
    raises.... There's someone who made a copy of the documents/material
    posted here??
    If the answer is "no", it's better begin to save all.

    Piergiorgio


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

    On 19 Jul 2006 01:30:21 -0700, "pbetti" wrote:

    >
    >Otaku wrote:
    >
    >> Has the Politburo now decided that they are the ones to decide whether a
    >> particular group is "worthy" of being kept? Do the users of the groups

    >
    >Just in case the "politburo" decide to drop the ng, a question
    >raises.... There's someone who made a copy of the documents/material
    >posted here??
    >If the answer is "no", it's better begin to save all.


    If the board decides to not remove comp.os.cpm.amethyst, who is going to
    make sure that there is a copy of the documents/material posted there?
    --
    Jim Riley

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

    On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:05:29 GMT, Jim Riley wrote in
    :

    >>Just in case the "politburo" decide to drop the ng, a question
    >>raises.... There's someone who made a copy of the documents/material
    >>posted here??


    The person who posted them probably has copies.

    Google has preserved the links and text files. So, for example,
    here is chapter 8 of IBM System/32 Reference manual:



    (I can see why the os.cpm people would not want posts like this in their group.)

    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.

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

    "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote:

    > Google has preserved the links and text files. So, for example,
    > here is chapter 8 of IBM System/32 Reference manual:


    (...)

    > (I can see why the os.cpm people would not want posts like this in their
    > group.)


    Hahaha! Very funny comment, Martin, since I retyped this manual precisely for
    CP/M Old Timers like me...

    This is, in fact, one of the two IBM documentations mentioned in the Intel
    data sheet dealing with their Floppy Disk Controller, able, of course, to read
    the famous IBM 3740 format or, if you prefer, the "Old Faithful" 8-inch floppy
    diskette format.

    I had noted those references 20 years ago, when disassembling a BIOS and its
    subroutines dealing with the floppy disk drive. Back then, I could not find
    those 2 references. (Some people call me an elephant for never forgetting a
    reference to an article or a book, when I am, in fact, a book worm...)

    Recently, I had the surprise to finally find it. So, I took advantage of one
    rainy day to retype it (fast forward) and here it is, finally!

    We will soon have almost everything that Gary Kildall had in 1972/1973 when he
    created PL/M and CP/M, short of a DECsystem-10...

    Yours Sincerely,
    "French Luser"




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

    Hello, everybody.

    I was amazed that this RFD announcement generated so much (or so few,
    depending upon your point of view) messages.

    Even more amazing: except Herb Johnson, that I have known since well before
    the Internet, all the others are people whose names do not ring to me! (I did
    not know that so many people where knowing me.)

    One, Marty, wrote:

    > The argument to keep the amethyst group seems odd to me.
    > comp.os.cpm users seem to have learned to look there for
    > old cpm documents.
    >
    > Perhaps someone should write an RFD for comp.os.cpm.documents
    > (moderated).


    May I remember you, and everybody here, that the only reason why I publish my
    longer documents on the comp.os.cpm.amthyst Newsgroup is that I have not
    managed to find a better place where to place them.

    Very recently, I wrote to Harvard University: they did not bother to answer my
    message.

    Again and again, over the years, I have called for the creation of an
    institution that could provide a central place for CP/M fans to store old
    computer systems (where systems = hardware + software). I was thinking of a
    CP/M Foundation, or Trust, or whatever. It just need to live longer than me,
    and have more time and money than me. I live so much "on a shoestring" that it
    is simply impossible for me to do it.

    Personally, I have no opinion about keeping or removing the
    comp.os.cpm.amethyst Newsgroup: I simply use it because it is here, and
    because Google keep it available online. (In fact, Google display only a very
    small portion of what I have done if you search on the "Web". You need to do
    Google -- Groups -- Advanced search to find my stuff. This shows that the Web
    is becoming more and more commercial. So, if no American Universities are
    interested in hosting all my files dealing with the first microcomputer disk
    operating system (made by an American), where should I put them? Sometimes, I
    despair. Very recenly, I had one such moment of discouragement. In France, we
    have a saying: "After the rainfall comes the sun..." I really wish that the
    sun will come soon!)

    Yours Sincerely,
    "French Luser"




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

    "pbetti" writes:

    >> Has the Politburo now decided that they are the ones to decide whether a
    >> particular group is "worthy" of being kept? Do the users of the groups


    > Just in case the "politburo" decide to drop the ng, a question
    > raises.... There's someone who made a copy of the documents/material
    > posted here??


    Google Groups, presumably. That's about as good as you get with
    any newsgroup nowadays.

    If you'd like to implement a newsgroup archiving project, I've got
    some code to start you off:

    http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/software/news/kiboze/

    - 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 < <*>

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

    Jim Riley writes:

    >> I am familiar with some of "French Luser's" efforts in reconstructing and
    >> publishing various historical printed publications into electronic format
    >> and he has made efficient use of the old group comp.os.cpm.amethyst rather
    >> than posting a large file to the text group comp.os.cpm.


    > A comp.binaries.cpm might be feasible, but it definitely would have to
    > moderated.


    Agreed. If anybody's interested in putting such a beast together
    - finding the moderator will be the hard part - I'd be happy to help with
    the proposal.

    - 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 < <*>

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

    *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. So unless you can point me to some way in
    which our ideosyncracies inconvenience you, I don't quite see your
    reason for involving yourself.
    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.


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

    > Jim Riley wrote:
    > >
    > > I don't see why French Luser's longish posts of source code and
    > > documents could not be posted to comp.os.cpm. There has only been about
    > > one new thread per day over the past month.


    I appreciate your response, but (chuckle) light traffic is a BAD thing?
    Considering the subject of c.o.c is a quarter-century old computing OS,
    older than some OS developers (!), a thread a day is ASTOUNDING.

    Otaku wrote:
    > But the point is, the group is being used - and even vaguely on topic.
    > _You_ may not see why FL cannot post to comp.os.cpm, but the _users_ of
    > c.o.c and c.o.c.amethyst seem to be happy with the situation.


    Indeed. There was a thread about that subject some years ago. "Luser"
    DID post at one point on c.o.c, and some objected (including myself);
    "Luser" came up with the "amethyst" solution, rather clever I thought.
    "Luser" has described his reasons for such posts, in this thread
    recently.

    > Has the Politburo now decided that they are the ones to decide whether a
    > particular group is "worthy" of being kept? Do the users of the groups
    > in question have no say?.....


    It's informative to read the related threads at news.groups, as
    requested by Mr. Riley. Apparently, there is an effort to remove unused
    newsgroups. Obviously "use" can be a judgement call. Notification
    within the NG's selected, and our responses, are part of the apparent
    process. I presume with good will, that no NG with any reasonable
    response by its users will be deleted.

    (But I have to admit, that as I read the discussion about these
    removals in news.groups, I could not help thinking about the
    "Hitchhiker's Guide" wherein the Vogon Construction Company posted
    prior notice of demolotion of Earth at the "local office" - several
    light years away but readily accessable, of course.)

    It's hard to imagine that a NG with even a handful of end users over
    periods of years, is nonetheless such a burden to the Internet and to
    millions of news servers that it MUST be eliminated. Please keep in
    mind the subject matter of the NG: legacy computing is not a
    high-traffic discussion. It would be ironic if the keepers of Usenet,
    itself a "legacy" from before the Web, would remove NG's that help to
    preserve legacy computing, simply due to lack of traffic by post-WWW
    standards.

    Herb Johnson

    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"


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

    On 19 Jul 2006 01:30:21 -0700, "pbetti" wrote:

    >
    >Otaku wrote:
    >
    >> Has the Politburo now decided that they are the ones to decide whether a
    >> particular group is "worthy" of being kept? Do the users of the groups

    >
    >Just in case the "politburo" decide to drop the ng, a question
    >raises.... There's someone who made a copy of the documents/material
    >posted here??
    >If the answer is "no", it's better begin to save all.


    Google is an American for-profit corporation. While they may choose to
    maintain the Usenet archive they are not compelled to do so. Prior to
    Google, DejaNews maintained a Usenet archive and they went out of
    business. Google later acquired the DejaNews archive.

    Google has maintained archives of groups that have been removed, while
    preventing users from posting to them. For example, the archives of
    net.micro.cpm, the predecessor group for comp.os.cpm are available on
    Google.

    Google does not archive binaries, and sometimes modifies articles by
    obscuring e-mail addresses. Some things that look like e-mail addresses
    might be Message-ID's or even system commands. Google might decide at
    some time to provide de-spamming filters for their archives. While that
    may be useful for most users, it might accidentally catch some other
    files, particularly if extremely large (4000 lines).

    Simply put, if I wanted a reliable archive of CP/M files, I would not
    depend on Google to maintain it for you. I would get as many copies as
    possible on systems of enthusiasts, and then share access to these
    archives through discussion in comp.os.cpm.
    --
    Jim Riley

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

    On 19 Jul 2006 13:49:25 -0700, "Herb Johnson"
    wrote:

    >> Jim Riley wrote:
    >> >
    >> > I don't see why French Luser's longish posts of source code and
    >> > documents could not be posted to comp.os.cpm. There has only been about
    >> > one new thread per day over the past month.

    >
    >I appreciate your response, but (chuckle) light traffic is a BAD thing?


    Light traffic is not a bad thing.

    His posts would appear to be on topic for comp.os.cpm, and it is not as
    if they would either overwhelm nor be lost in comp.os.cpm.

    >Indeed. There was a thread about that subject some years ago. "Luser"
    >DID post at one point on c.o.c, and some objected (including myself);


    On what basis did you object to his posting to comp.os.cpm?
    --
    Jim Riley

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