msc@saber.UUCP (Mark Callow) (03/21/86)
I've been noticing a lot of 2.10.3 problem reports in this newsgroup.
As far as I know 2.10.3 is still in beta test. Given that, please
keep these problem reports out of this group so that
1. people won't be put off upgrading to to 2.10.3, when it is *released*,
"because of all the bugs"
2. the group isn't cluttered with stuff that only a small fraction
of the readership care about right now.
--
From the TARDIS of Mark Callow
msc@saber.uucp, sun!saber!msc@decwrl.dec.com ...{ihnp4,sun}!saber!msc
"Boards are long and hard and made of wood"gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (03/22/86)
In article <1958@saber.UUCP> msc@saber.UUCP (Mark Callow) writes: > I've been noticing a lot of 2.10.3 problem reports in this newsgroup. > As far as I know 2.10.3 is still in beta test. Given that, please > keep these problem reports out of this group so that > > ... > 2. the group isn't cluttered with stuff that only a small fraction > of the readership care about right now. I agree. I think the 2.10.3 folks need a mailing list, and I wonder why this didn't occur to someone before. seems obvious. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,seismo,hplabs}!amdahl!gam
grr@cbm.UUCP (03/24/86)
> I've been noticing a lot of 2.10.3 problem reports in this newsgroup. > As far as I know 2.10.3 is still in beta test. Given that, please > keep these problem reports out of this group so that... > > From the TARDIS of Mark Callow > msc@saber.uucp, sun!saber!msc@decwrl.dec.com ...{ihnp4,sun}!saber!msc It may still be in beta test (i think not!), but in any case it's the release many people are still trying to install and get running smoothly. I did, and I definatly want to see any and all problems that others have encountered... HEY!!! Could we have some 'offical' release announcments/status reports on News 2.10.3 - how about mod.sources style vnews and rn??? I realize this information may have been posted, but I haven't seen it lately. Wonder how many hops the average news software take before it gets installed at a site? No flames about official distributions - talking about reality... -- George Robbins - now working with, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|caip}!cbm!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbm!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
csg@pyramid.UUCP (Carl S. Gutekunst) (03/24/86)
>> I've been noticing a lot of 2.10.3 problem reports in this newsgroup. >> As far as I know 2.10.3 is still in beta test. Given that, please >> keep these problem reports out of this group so that >> ... >> 2. the group isn't cluttered with stuff that only a small fraction >> of the readership care about right now. > >I agree. I think the 2.10.3 folks need a mailing list, and I wonder >why this didn't occur to someone before. >seems obvious. It's actually alpha; Rick won't be posting the "official" beta version for a few (days? weeks?) yet. Still, as much as I respect you guys, I have to disagree.... The "small fraction of the readership" using 2.10.3 is actually quite large and growing rapidly, including much of the backbone. See seismo's posting of current news versions for verification. I claim that given the installed base of 2.10.3 sites and the location of those sites, the net as a whole benefits from these postings. A mailing list would be difficult, in part because the number of 2.10.3 sites is growing very rapidly. A curiosity: in the San Francisco Bay Area, the majority of sites that post (I'm serious, more than 50%) and 2/3 of the BA backbone are running various flavors of 2.10.3.... -- Carl S. Gutekunst {allegra,cmcl2,decwrl,hplabs,topaz,ut-sally}!pyramid!csg Pyramid Technology Corp, Mountain View, CA +1 415 965 7200
shannon@sun.uucp (Bill Shannon) (03/25/86)
This is ridiculous. Why are so many sites running 2.10.3 "alpha" software? This can hardly be called an alpha test. It's been running for years it seems. What we've done is invent another level to the numbering scheme. First there was version 1, then version 2, then 2.1, then 2.2, ... then 2.10, then 2.10.1, then 2.10.2, then 2.10.3 alpha, then 2.10.3 beta, .... Somebody ought to learn how to run a beta test and how to release software. It will never be perfect, just do a good job, release it, and get on with the next version. Tired of waiting for 2.11, Bill Shannon
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (03/26/86)
In article <3400@sun.uucp> shannon@sun.uucp (Bill Shannon) writes: >What we've done is invent another >level to the numbering scheme. First there was version 1, then >version 2, then 2.1, then 2.2, ... then 2.10, then 2.10.1, then >2.10.2, then 2.10.3 alpha, then 2.10.3 beta, .... They must be taking lessons from ATT Unix marketing... PS Don't forget 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta. -- "It's time to raise gasoline taxes." Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (03/26/86)
So why is my Sun 3 running "3.0PILOT"? Is Pilot before or after Beta test? It seems sun like to use obscure naming conventions too. --rick
earlw@pesnta.UUCP (Earl Wallace) (03/28/86)
In article <214@pyramid.UUCP> csg@pyramid.UUCP (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: >>>... >A curiosity: in the San Francisco Bay Area, the majority of sites that post >(I'm serious, more than 50%) and 2/3 of the BA backbone are running various >flavors of 2.10.3.... >... The Bay Area seems to be well connected! :-)
rs@mirror.UUCP (03/30/86)
>/* Written 12:42 pm Mar 26, 1986 by rick@seismo.UUCP in mirror:net.news.b */ >So why is my Sun 3 running "3.0PILOT"? >Is Pilot before or after Beta test? >It seems sun like to use obscure naming conventions too. >--rick Okay, you haven't seen any software my company wrote, so I'll re-state Bill Shannon's complaint: all you're doing is adding another level of confusing numbering. And, if Carl@Pyramid is right that more than half the Bay Area (Calif) sites are running "some version" of 10.3, then you're doomed before you start: calling it an alpha or beta test is a joke, and if it's "some version" then you're really doomed: how are you gonna get a central version and convert everyone over. Not that I don't appreciate your efforts (h*ll, and I even run notes!), but the point is valid and you guys should try to address it. Sniping like this is stupid. -- Rich $alz {mit-eddie, ihnp4!inmet, wjh12, cca, datacube}!mirror!rs Mirror Systems 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA, 02140 Telephone: 6,176,610,777
install@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman) (04/03/86)
In article <3400@sun.uucp>, shannon@sun.uucp (Bill Shannon) writes: > This is ridiculous. Why are so many sites running 2.10.3 "alpha" > software? This can hardly be called an alpha test. It's been > running for years it seems. What we've done is invent another > level to the numbering scheme. First there was version 1, then > version 2, then 2.1, then 2.2, ... then 2.10, then 2.10.1, then > 2.10.2, then 2.10.3 alpha, then 2.10.3 beta, .... Somebody > ought to learn how to run a beta test and how to release software. > It will never be perfect, just do a good job, release it, and get > on with the next version. > > Tired of waiting for 2.11, > > Bill Shannon Well, I'm running 2.10.3 and had no idea it wasn't "released" until I saw this series of articles. My question is: given I know who gave me the sources to make for this machine, where did they *originally* come from. (Yes, I know this displays lots of ignorance, but then I have plenty since I'm new to usenet, UNIX, and this machine). I want to know because I have several ideas about what would be useful for folks like me on the UNIX PC, I'm willing to do the work to make the changes, but I have no idea how to get them more widely distributed once I do. My ideas: 1. Since most UNIX PC users don't get the "development kit", they don't have a cc and cannot make *any* modifications at the source level. This includes changing the Organization Name, which according to the documentation must be changed in the localize.sh. It would make sense to have the option to make a version which would read the organization from a file in /usr/lib/news and then one binary would do for all, much as the NOTIFY stuff is done now. 2. The UNIX PC is happiest if the new "shared library" feature is used, which requires some changes in how the ld program is invoked. This saves on setup time for each process, swapping, and disk space for the binaries. What do I do with these ideas (no jokes, please)? Answers, help, and flames to Kevin O'Gorman ...{ihnp4,hjuxa}!wcom!kosman!install