RFD: remove comp.binaries.geos moderated - GEOS

This is a discussion on RFD: remove comp.binaries.geos moderated - GEOS ; REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) remove comp.binaries.geos This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the moderated newsgroup comp.binaries.geos. RATIONALE: remove comp.binaries.geos There have been no approved messages since September 1997. Distribution of binary programs via Usenet, and in ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: RFD: remove comp.binaries.geos moderated

  1. RFD: remove comp.binaries.geos moderated

    REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
    remove comp.binaries.geos

    This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) to remove the moderated
    newsgroup comp.binaries.geos.


    RATIONALE: remove comp.binaries.geos

    There have been no approved messages since September 1997.

    Distribution of binary programs via Usenet, and in particular the Big
    8 comp.binaries.* groups is no longer particularly useful or viable.
    The binaries groups were created before there was widespread access to
    the Internet, so that propagation of binaries via Usenet was a viable
    alternative to distribution via floppies or other removal storage
    media sent by mail.

    Binaries newsgroups typically have very short expiration periods, so
    someone interested in acquiring programs would have to constantly
    monitor a newsgroup, or hope that the programs were archived so that
    they can be accessed via the internet (such as by FTP). But if the
    programs can be sent via internet, there is no need for the Usenet
    alternative.

    Google does not archive binaries in newsgroups. So even though they
    maintain archives of the comp.binaries.* groups, they do not archive
    most of the content (the reason for existence of the group in the
    first place).

    Over the years, programs have generally become larger and more
    complex. When transmitted by Usenet this may require the programs be
    distributed in many parts, some of which may be lost. Again,
    transmission via FTP is more reliable.

    The moderators of binaries newsgroups may be legally responsible for
    the reliability of software, whether it is legal to distribute, and
    whether it is free of viruses and trojans. Many may not be willing to
    assume that responsibility, and unmoderated binaries groups are not
    acceptable in the Big 8.

    This proposal is one of several that will removal all groups in the
    comp.binaries.* hierarchy except comp.binaries.cbm.


    HISTORY:

    The newsgroup comp.binaries.geos was created in March 1994.


    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:

    This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:

    news.announce.newgroups
    news.groups
    comp.binaries.geos
    comp.os.geos.misc
    comp.sys.pen


    PROPONENT:

    Jim Riley


    CHANGE HISTORY:

    2006-10-05 1st RFD

  2. Re: RFD: remove comp.binaries.geos moderated

    > Jim Riley wrote:
    >
    > There have been no approved messages since September 1997.
    >

    This confuses me. If this is a moderated group AND there have been no
    approved messages since September, 1997, who has been approving all
    of the messages in this moderated newsgroup that I've been receiving?
    >
    > Distribution of binary programs via Usenet, and in particular the Big
    > 8 comp.binaries.* groups is no longer particularly useful or viable.
    > The binaries groups were created before there was widespread access to
    > the Internet, so that propagation of binaries via Usenet was a viable
    > alternative to distribution via floppies or other removal storage
    > media sent by mail.
    >

    NOT particularly useful? I think not. While I'm not familiar enough
    with geos products and there cannot answer questions here, I have
    posted some questions over the past few years. I've gotten quick and
    excellent answer to my questions.
    >


    >
    > Google does not archive binaries in newsgroups. So even though they
    > maintain archives of the comp.binaries.* groups, they do not archive
    > most of the content (the reason for existence of the group in the
    > first place).
    >

    Time to sound like you mother. If Google jumped off a bridge, would
    you do it too?
    >


    >
    > PROPONENT:
    >
    > Jim Riley
    >
    > CHANGE HISTORY:
    >
    > 2006-10-05 1st RFD
    >

    Please, don't remove this newsgroup.

    Joe

  3. Re: RFD: remove comp.binaries.geos moderated

    Joe wrote:

    >> Jim Riley wrote:
    >>
    >> There have been no approved messages since September 1997.
    >>

    > This confuses me. If this is a moderated group AND there have been no
    > approved messages since September, 1997, who has been approving all
    > of the messages in this moderated newsgroup that I've been receiving?
    >>


    Can you clarify, please? What do *you* mean by "this ... group"? You are
    responding to a post in news.groups (I think we can assume you don't
    mean that one) and comp.os.geos.misc (which I think you may mean) about
    comp.binaries.geos (which is the moderated group under threat of
    removal). There is no proposal to remove comp.os.geos.misc, which is an
    unmoderated group.

    >> Distribution of binary programs via Usenet, and in particular the Big
    >> 8 comp.binaries.* groups is no longer particularly useful or viable.
    >> The binaries groups were created before there was widespread access
    >> to the Internet, so that propagation of binaries via Usenet was a
    >> viable alternative to distribution via floppies or other removal
    >> storage media sent by mail.
    >>

    > NOT particularly useful? I think not. While I'm not familiar enough
    > with geos products and there cannot answer questions here, I have
    > posted some questions over the past few years. I've gotten quick and
    > excellent answer to my questions.
    >>


    Which is what makes me think you're talking about c.o.g.m rather than
    c.b.g. You'd be less likely to post questions in a binaries group.


    >>

    > Please, don't remove this newsgroup.


    Again, if by this newsgroup you mean c.o.g.m, nobody is proposing to
    remove it.

    john

  4. Re: RFD: remove comp.binaries.geos moderated

    Hi,

    please remember the most important fact about the discussion of the
    potential removal of comp.binaries.geos:
    If you do have any comments, please post in the thread "RFD: remove
    comp.binaries.geos moderated" in "news.groups" - and not here! Any
    objections that'll be found only here, simply won't count!

    Regards,
    Jörg


  5. Re: RFD: remove comp.binaries.geos moderated

    On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:15:50 GMT, Joe wrote:

    >> Jim Riley wrote:
    >>
    >> There have been no approved messages since September 1997.
    >>

    >This confuses me. If this is a moderated group AND there have been no
    >approved messages since September, 1997, who has been approving all
    >of the messages in this moderated newsgroup that I've been receiving?


    This is a proposal to remove the newsgroup comp.binaries.geos.

    It was cross-posted to the newsgroup comp.os.geos.misc, where you
    presumably read the RFD, so that persons most interested in GEOS
    would be informed of the proposed removal of comp.binaries.geos.

    This is not a proposal to remove comp.os.geos.misc (and
    comp.os.geos.misc is not a moderated newsgroup).

    >> Distribution of binary programs via Usenet, and in particular the Big
    >> 8 comp.binaries.* groups is no longer particularly useful or viable.
    >> The binaries groups were created before there was widespread access to
    >> the Internet, so that propagation of binaries via Usenet was a viable
    >> alternative to distribution via floppies or other removal storage
    >> media sent by mail.
    >>

    >NOT particularly useful? I think not. While I'm not familiar enough
    >with geos products and there cannot answer questions here, I have
    >posted some questions over the past few years. I've gotten quick and
    >excellent answer to my questions.


    These questions and answers were posted to comp.os.geos.misc. They
    were not binaries - and they were not posted to comp.binaries.geos.

    >> Google does not archive binaries in newsgroups. So even though they
    >> maintain archives of the comp.binaries.* groups, they do not archive
    >> most of the content (the reason for existence of the group in the
    >> first place).
    >>

    >Time to sound like you mother. If Google jumped off a bridge, would
    >you do it too?


    I don't see the connection between Google providing an archive of
    comp.binaries.geos -- but not archiving the binary content of
    comp.binaries.geos and my mother. That's a bridge too far, that we
    won't cross when we get to it, that you're trying to sell me.

    >
    >>
    >> PROPONENT:
    >>
    >> Jim Riley
    >>
    >> CHANGE HISTORY:
    >>
    >> 2006-10-05 1st RFD
    >>

    >Please, don't remove this newsgroup.


    If by _this newsgroup_ you mean comp.os.geos.misc,there is not a
    proposal to remove it.
    --
    Jim Riley

  6. Re: RFD: remove comp.binaries.geos moderated

    [news.groups added, follow up to news.groups only]

    On 6 Oct 2006 09:22:19 -0700, jpolzfuss@yahoo.de wrote:

    >please remember the most important fact about the discussion of the
    >potential removal of comp.binaries.geos:
    >If you do have any comments, please post in the thread "RFD: remove
    >comp.binaries.geos moderated" in "news.groups" - and not here! Any
    >objections that'll be found only here, simply won't count!


    I am the proponent for this proposal.

    I check for any discussion that may occur in the newsgroups that the
    proposal is cross-posted to. While it is true that discussion should
    be posted to news.groups (with cross-posting to other groups
    optional), I would not claim that discussion elsewhere "won't count".
    There is some possibility that it might be overlooked by those who
    make the final decision.
    --
    Jim Riley

  7. Re: RFD: remove comp.binaries.geos moderated

    > John Ashby wrote:
    >
    > Joe wrote:
    >
    > >> Jim Riley wrote:
    > >>
    > >> There have been no approved messages since September 1997.
    > >>

    > > This confuses me. If this is a moderated group AND there have been no
    > > approved messages since September, 1997, who has been approving all
    > > of the messages in this moderated newsgroup that I've been receiving?
    > >>

    >
    > Can you clarify, please? What do *you* mean by "this ... group"? You are
    > responding to a post in news.groups (I think we can assume you don't
    > mean that one) and comp.os.geos.misc (which I think you may mean) about
    > comp.binaries.geos (which is the moderated group under threat of
    > removal). There is no proposal to remove comp.os.geos.misc, which is an
    > unmoderated group.
    >
    > >> Distribution of binary programs via Usenet, and in particular the Big
    > >> 8 comp.binaries.* groups is no longer particularly useful or viable.
    > >> The binaries groups were created before there was widespread access
    > >> to the Internet, so that propagation of binaries via Usenet was a
    > >> viable alternative to distribution via floppies or other removal
    > >> storage media sent by mail.
    > >>

    > > NOT particularly useful? I think not. While I'm not familiar enough
    > > with geos products and there cannot answer questions here, I have
    > > posted some questions over the past few years. I've gotten quick and
    > > excellent answer to my questions.
    > >>

    >
    > Which is what makes me think you're talking about c.o.g.m rather than
    > c.b.g. You'd be less likely to post questions in a binaries group.
    >
    > >>

    > > Please, don't remove this newsgroup.

    >
    > Again, if by this newsgroup you mean c.o.g.m, nobody is proposing to
    > remove it.
    >
    > john
    >

    John,

    My apologies. I was referring to comp.os.geos.misc. This is the group
    where I read Jim's post. I responded to the group and added
    news.group as per the original request in the post.

    Again, I apologize for the confusion I caused. It was 8;15 AM and I
    wasn't quite awake enough and was in a hurry to leave the house when
    I made my post.

    Joe

  8. Re: RFD: remove comp.binaries.geos moderated

    > Jim Riley wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:15:50 GMT, Joe wrote:
    >
    > >> Jim Riley wrote:
    > >>
    > >> There have been no approved messages since September 1997.
    > >>

    > >This confuses me. If this is a moderated group AND there have been no
    > >approved messages since September, 1997, who has been approving all
    > >of the messages in this moderated newsgroup that I've been receiving?

    >
    > This is a proposal to remove the newsgroup comp.binaries.geos.
    >
    > It was cross-posted to the newsgroup comp.os.geos.misc, where you
    > presumably read the RFD, so that persons most interested in GEOS
    > would be informed of the proposed removal of comp.binaries.geos.
    >
    > This is not a proposal to remove comp.os.geos.misc (and
    > comp.os.geos.misc is not a moderated newsgroup).
    >
    > >> Distribution of binary programs via Usenet, and in particular the Big
    > >> 8 comp.binaries.* groups is no longer particularly useful or viable.
    > >> The binaries groups were created before there was widespread access to
    > >> the Internet, so that propagation of binaries via Usenet was a viable
    > >> alternative to distribution via floppies or other removal storage
    > >> media sent by mail.
    > >>

    > >NOT particularly useful? I think not. While I'm not familiar enough
    > >with geos products and there cannot answer questions here, I have
    > >posted some questions over the past few years. I've gotten quick and
    > >excellent answer to my questions.

    >
    > These questions and answers were posted to comp.os.geos.misc. They
    > were not binaries - and they were not posted to comp.binaries.geos.
    >
    > >> Google does not archive binaries in newsgroups. So even though they
    > >> maintain archives of the comp.binaries.* groups, they do not archive
    > >> most of the content (the reason for existence of the group in the
    > >> first place).
    > >>

    > >Time to sound like you mother. If Google jumped off a bridge, would
    > >you do it too?

    >
    > I don't see the connection between Google providing an archive of
    > comp.binaries.geos -- but not archiving the binary content of
    > comp.binaries.geos and my mother. That's a bridge too far, that we
    > won't cross when we get to it, that you're trying to sell me.
    >
    > >
    > >>
    > >> PROPONENT:
    > >>
    > >> Jim Riley
    > >>
    > >> CHANGE HISTORY:
    > >>
    > >> 2006-10-05 1st RFD
    > >>

    > >Please, don't remove this newsgroup.

    >
    > If by _this newsgroup_ you mean comp.os.geos.misc,there is not a
    > proposal to remove it.
    > --
    > Jim Riley
    >

    Jim,

    Please, see my reply to to John I made a few minutes ago. I apologize
    for my confusion. I really should be more awake when I make a post.

    Re: my Google comment. I took it to mean that if Google does/not does
    something then everyone should follow suit. I my mind, I read that
    since Google doesn't archive, there is no need for this group.

    As I said in my post to John, I wasn't awake. I realize now that I
    shouldn't have been responding so early in the morning or certainly be
    awake enough to be sure of what I'm reading.

    Joe

    --
    Microsoft
    Our motto:
    "It's not our software that's the problem;
    it's you using our software that's the problem."

  9. Re: RFD: remove comp.binaries.geos moderated

    On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:52:02 GMT, Joe wrote:

    >Please, see my reply to to John I made a few minutes ago. I apologize
    >for my confusion. I really should be more awake when I make a post.


    I figured that was what happened. I just wanted people to know for
    sure that it is NOT comp.os.geos.misc that is being proposed for
    removal.

    >Re: my Google comment. I took it to mean that if Google does/not does
    >something then everyone should follow suit. I my mind, I read that
    >since Google doesn't archive, there is no need for this group.


    My response was flippant, sorry.

    Generally you don't know when you are going to want a particular
    binary file such as a GEOS program. So if there is going to be a
    place to get the program it has to have long term storage. A
    newsgroup doesn't provide that long term storage, especially in the
    case of binaries groups, which often only keep articles for a few
    days. Google keep messages for a lot longer, essentially forever. But
    since they don't save binaries, it doesn't help comp.binaries.geos.
    --
    Jim Riley

+ Reply to Thread