"Marco Leon" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, OK, then if not broadband, then the increasing availability of
cheaper storage. Regardless, I don't think a non-binary titled
newsgroup will ever reach a critical mass of images being uploaded to
cause an issue (especially given the relatively low volume of messages
this group gets).
In addition to what else has already been pointed out, keep in mind that a
given newsgroup may be subject to a fixed storage quota. In a text
newsgroup, a single binary could easily be equivalent to hundreds of regular
messages, and allowing that single binary would cause hundreds of regular
messages to be discarded earlier than they otherwise would have been.
Text and binaries just aren't compatible in a single newsgroup. If the
newsgroup is not a binary newsgroup in the first place, allowing binaries
can have serious ramifications on the normal use of the newsgroup
(obviously, the converse of posting text messages to a binary newsgroup
isn't a problem).
The volume of posts that the flight simmer wannabe/troll would probably
exceed the minimal size a few images take up.
Depends on the size of the images. However, today a *small* image file is
between 500K and 1MB. With text messages running around 2K to 5K, maybe 20K
for a really really large one that hasn't had the quoted trimmed properly,
just ONE image file represents hundreds of text messages. Even a few
quickly overtake any undesirable text messages, and there's no reason to
expect that image files will be restricted in size to what passes for a
small one today.
And all of that is before considering the inflation in data size: text
encoding of binaries is incredibly wasteful (depending on the encoding being
used, it could inflate the size of the data by 30-50%).
Of course, there's also the issue that when posted to a newsgroup, a message
(binary or not) gets transmitted to each and every news server carrying that
newsgroup, whether or not any user using that news server will ever even
bother to download the message. That is also wasteful
Furthermore, many users have their news readers configured to download every
message, without a limit on size, even though they may have no interest in
looking at the binary file. So not only are news servers forced to receive,
store, and retransmit data that they never actually use, so too are users
(and many users today are still subject either to bandwidth quotas or
bandwidth charges). This is wasteful as well.
In fact, there's very little about binaries in newsgroups (whether in a
newsgroup for binaries or not) that is not wasteful.
Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that ISPs still bother to carry *any* binary
newsgroups. Even in the old days, when binary file transmission was pretty
much restricted to FTP or text encoding, it would have been much better to
use FTP. But at least then, one could point out that there weren't that
many freely available FTP sites where users could store binary data for
redistribution. Today, free web server space is easy to come by, and using
it solves a variety of issues, including not having to use an inefficient
encoding mechanism as well as avoiding transmitting the data to users who
don't actually need or want it.
If this discussion is to be had, what it really ought to be about is the
complete abolishment of binary newsgroups in the first place. That debate
seems to still have valid open arguments for both sides, even as clearly the
world should be moving away from them. But IMHO, the question of binaries
in a text newsgroup is obvious: they don't belong. Usenet should be moving
*forward* with the progress elsewhere in the computer industry, not
backwards.
But you know what? It ain't worth arguing because it's not a big issue
for me.
I'm not so sure it's about arguing about it. It's not like you have in your
power to change the way this newsgroup handles binaries. None of us do.
It's not a designated binary newsgroup, and so most ISPs simply don't allow
binaries in it.
To me, the question is more about education. That is, there are very real
reasons that binaries aren't allowed here, and it seems to me that a person
who believes that binaries *should* be allowed could use more information.
Rather than trying to debate with them (that is, you

) the merits of
allowing binaries, it's more about educating them about why binaries
shouldn't be allowed.
Pete