CALL FOR DISCUSSION: BIO-SRS/bionet.software.srs
R.Doelz,Biocomputing Basel;+41 61 267 22 47
doelz at ubaclu.unibas.ch
Fri Jan 13 08:04:23 EST 1995
In article <steipe-120195113826 at inherit.lmb.uni-muenchen.de>, steipe at lmb.uni-muenchen.de (Boris Steipe) writes:
> bionet.software feels that SRS should not be discussed there. Thus if
> pretty much the same people read both groups, why do you need a separate
> group? The traffic is low anyway. I may be wrong but I don't see the
Cornelius Krasel wrote:
>I don't think that the traffic on bionet.software concerned with SRS warrants
>the creation of another bionet group.
Both colleagues have observed low traffic on bionet software with respect to
SRS. To conclude that there is now message traffic, however, is incorrect.
You might know that SRS is currently facing a burst of development, as the
original author Thure Etzold has successfully installed it on several nodes
and others followed (currently, already more than 50 databases are available
to the community world-wide). Many more installations have succeeded in non-
network server environments. The current release on many local installations
is 3.1 - the release 4.0 which is already available is quite different and does
require support and discussion. Many of the readers who don't see traffic
on bionet.software might be surprised on the amount of communication which
occured on private lists and individual communications. SRS 4.x is not only a
server engine but allows also the use of WWW and other browsers. Now you as
bionet.software reader will not know it but we have developed a command-line
network browser which integrates well into GCG-like environments or could
be used as standalone application. The reason why it wasn't announced yet is
that development implies many sub-releases before an actual announcement can
take place. We would sincerely hope that the user community benefitting from
SRS will be better supported if we do have a communication channel to serve
messages to all and in public rather to 'select' individuals to mail or phone
to. I was quite surprised to see installations at places we did not know of,
and a forum like the proposed newsgroup is the ideal vehicle.
We would estimate the traffic to be similar to the ACEDB newsgroup. All
arguments for or against 'small' or 'specialist' newsgroups apply to the
other bionet newsgroups as well. What about the gcg subsection and overlaps?
I guess there are many crosspostings, too, in particular as people would
think that it is appropriate to talk (a) to the specialist audience and
(b) to general public in order to get the best advice or forum deserved.
Lets make communication a success.
More information about the Bioforum