gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (10/30/85)
I propose that we remove net.sources and only allow the posting of
sources in mod.sources.* for the following reasons:
Net.sources is by far and away the highest volume newsgroup. As such,
it occupies the largest bandwidth during news transmission.
Net.sources falls prey to the repeated information problem -- too many
repostings of old information. Examples:
* Please repost hack version 9000 ...
* I have a program that prints files backwards, sideways, upside
down ...
* Here is a sendmail.cf that runs rings around Mars ...
* etc., etc.
There is no *demonstrated need* for the posting of sources to the whole
net. Many sites do not allow their users to play games, so there is no
need for those hosts to have the sources to games on their machine.
Furthermore, many sites don't even care to see that a new sendmail.cf
has been posted (they don't run sendmail). In general, there isn't a
need for all the sites to have all the software peole want to post. If
someone wants software they should mail the authors for it.
Subsequently, mod.sources can be used for the posting of *announcements*
of available software.
A good example would be the posting of the news sources. The majority
of sites are not running the latest version of news, and have no
intentions of converting to the newest news when the newest news
arrives. They need not be burdened with the news sources typing up
their phone lines and occupying their disk space. When they want to
upgrade, they can request the news sources by mail.
I have had the unfortunate experience of seeing multiple rnews's running
because the last one didn't finish before the next one was forked (from
the same machine). Some huge posting from net.sources.* was usually the
culprit. I've also seen it tie up phone lines and RJE links.
If newsgroups like net.flame, net.religion, etc. are going to be
rmgrouped, then net.sources.* should go with them. Net.sources.* is
just cluttering up the net too much to stay around in its present form.
If you want software from someone bad enough, send them mail and use
your phones to carry the traffic. If you want to advertise your
software bad enough, announce its availability and accept requests for
it. But don't subject the rest of the net to software it doesn't want
or need to see.
To sum up, net.sources.* should be rmgrouped. Mod.sources.* should
remain, with stict controls on the content of the group by the
moderator. Submitters should be *encouraged strongly* to post requests
for or advertisements of software, and only in extreme cases of need
should large sources be posted to the net. This goes for the posting of
bugs and shareware as well.
--
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
gds@mit-eddie.mit.edueli@vcvax1.UUCP (eli) (10/30/85)
> I propose that we remove net.sources and only allow the posting of > sources in mod.sources.* for the following reasons: Oh no! Not another one gone! net.flame will be going for *centuries* ! :-) > * Please repost hack version 9000 ... > * I have a program that prints files backwards, sideways, upside > down ... > * Here is a sendmail.cf that runs rings around Mars ... > * etc., etc. I agree here. Too many sources that no one needs, cares about, wants to pay to move around ..... Still, must we resort to rmgroup-ing all groups that don't quite cut the mustard? > If newsgroups like net.flame, net.religion, etc. are going to be > rmgrouped, then net.sources.* should go with them. PLEASE! Lets not start an orgy of rmgroup-ing when what we really need is just to start spreading the cost of maintaining the net more evenly. yes, I heard you shudder. "What, PAY for this service?" You betcha. The backbone is too centralized a concept that puts all the weight of the net on a group of systems rather than spreading around to ALL the net-users. An effort must be made to provide this service at a reasonable expense to everyone. If the traffic on net.sources is too much to handle and the group is functioning within its charter (that is, the mega-posting are considered "appropriate" according to the wording of the charter, whatever that may be) then the charter should be changed. Perhaps (if it is not like this already) people should offer sources, like: "Hey. I have a program that brews coffee backwards and sends mail too" To which people could respond by e-mail. Perhaps the people who want the programs could even arrange when to UUCP it from the offerer so that THEY can pick up the tab. Would this help? If I follow your statement correctly, I think it would. > It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under. > > Greg Skinner (gregbo) > {decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds > gds@mit-eddie.mit.edu ------------ "You Lied!" "I *exagerrated*." Elias Israel (eli) VenturCom, Inc. {mit-eddie, harvard}!cybvax0!vcvax1!eli
ron@dsi1.UUCP (Ron Flax) (10/31/85)
> I propose that we remove net.sources and only allow the posting of > sources in mod.sources.* for the following reasons: YOU MUST BE NUTS!!!! There is certainly more good than bad, and net.sources is one of the best reasons for even participating in Usenet at all. -- Ron Flax (ron@dsi1.UUCP) ARPA: dsi1!ron@seismo.arpa UUCP: ..!{seismo, rlgvax, prometheus}!dsi1!ron USPS: DSI, 2361 S. Jefferson Davis Hwy., St. PL404, Arlington VA 22202
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (10/31/85)
In article <245@mit-eddie.UUCP> gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) writes: >I propose that we remove net.sources and only allow the posting of >sources in mod.sources.* for the following reasons: I agree 1000% with Greg! Let's move this into net.news.group exclusively to discuss it so we don't gum up net.sources even more than it is now (if that is possible). Thanks! -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
mom@sfmag.UUCP (M.Modig) (10/31/85)
I agree with the proposal to turn net.sources* into mod.sources*. At the very least this will provide some of the control needed to prevent the needless duplication of requests and the costs incurred from shipping huge pieces of code that may not be of interest to everyone all over the net. I'm not sure what the best solution is as far as the content of the moderated group should be: I could see how only requests for source and announcements of availability might be allowed, with arrangements having to be made off the net for the source to be sent to people who want it. On the other hand, posting of sources that would be of use to many (determined by some procedure-- exactly what, I'm not sure) might also be allowed. Any thoughts? Mark Modig ihnp4!sfmag!mom
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (10/31/85)
In article <136@vcvax1.UUCP> eli@vcvax1.UUCP (eli) writes: >If the traffic on net.sources is too much to handle and the group is >functioning within its charter (that is, the mega-posting are considered >"appropriate" according to the wording of the charter, whatever that may be) >then the charter should be changed. Perhaps (if it is not like this already) >people should offer sources, like: > > "Hey. I have a program that brews coffee backwards and sends mail too" > >To which people could respond by e-mail. Not to jump on Eli, but this ain't too cool an idea. The problem is that twenty different users downstream from gatech (or whatever) are going to want copies, and then gatech will get 20 different copies transmitted through it, not just one. Thus, backbones pay *more* for the services. This is, of course, also a problem with having mod.sources only post announcements, too. The only solution is to eliminate net.sources.* in favor of mod.sources.* Ken Arnold
stanly@unmvax.UUCP (11/01/85)
> has been posted (they don't run sendmail). In general, there isn't a > need for all the sites to have all the software peole want to post. If > someone wants software they should mail the authors for it. > Subsequently, mod.sources can be used for the posting of *announcements* > of available software. I have a question... If I made a new version of hack 9001 and posted: Hay! I have a hack! send me mail if you want one. I get 300 letters saying : "I want hack". I then send out 300 copies at ~600K for each one or 180Mg of data. Thats about (at 1200 Baud) 16 days worth of phone time for my machine alone... > > A good example would be the posting of the news sources. The majority > of sites are not running the latest version of news, and have no > intentions of converting to the newest news when the newest news > arrives. They need not be burdened with the news sources typing up > their phone lines and occupying their disk space. When they want to > upgrade, they can request the news sources by mail. Golly... I just made a new version of news. 100 people want it. 15 of them have paths that are through ihnp4. Well... 15 sources of news for a while in ihnp4's spool directory will not be that bad. > To sum up, net.sources.* should be rmgrouped. Mod.sources.* should > remain, with stict controls on the content of the group by the > moderator. Submitters should be *encouraged strongly* to post requests > for or advertisements of software, and only in extreme cases of need > should large sources be posted to the net. This goes for the posting of > bugs and shareware as well. > -- > It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under. > > Greg Skinner (gregbo) > {decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds > gds@mit-eddie.mit.edu Sending out sources in little packets is far worse then sending it out in one packet. You can always turn off your net.sources on your machine. JUST DON'T CUT IT OFF FOR PEOPLE DOWN STREAM! Send me mail . . . I L O V E mail Josh Siegel {convex,ucbvax,gatech,csu-cs,anl-mcs,lanl-a}!unmvax!crunch!josh
jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) (11/01/85)
In article <687@ucsfcgl.UUCP> arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold) writes: > >Not to jump on Eli, but this ain't too cool an idea. The problem > >The only solution is to eliminate net.sources.* in favor of mod.sources.* > > Ken Arnold The problem with mod.anything has always been that the moderator 'evaluates' the posting. His criteria will vary according to: 1) His beliefs. 2) How much time he has. What happened to 'the free interchange of ideas'. Can't you gurus come up with a mechanism of control which does not depend on your placing people of your choice in a position of power to control the flow of ideas and expressions to the rest of us out here? -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200
ksb@houxs.UUCP (K.BANDES) (11/01/85)
I like to see sources in net.sources, so maybe we should form a "net.rmgroup" for discussions on which groups to remove, a subject that interests me not at all. Ken Bandes @ AT&T IS ...ihnp4!houxs!ksb
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (11/01/85)
In article <391@dsi1.UUCP> ron@dsi1.UUCP (Ron Flax) writes: >> I propose that we remove net.sources and only allow the posting of >> sources in mod.sources.* for the following reasons: > >YOU MUST BE NUTS!!!! > >There is certainly more good than bad, and net.sources is one of the >best reasons for even participating in Usenet at all. > I didn't have time to write my own flame, so I'll just second this one: leave net.sources the bloody alone! I get all *sorts* of goodies from it that aren't fancy enough for a moderated group. -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (11/01/85)
In article <5647@amdcad.UUCP> jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) writes: >The problem with mod.anything has always been that the moderator >'evaluates' the posting. That's not a problem, that's a feature. >What happened to 'the free interchange of ideas'. Free interchange of garbage and flames is more like it. We're trying to increase the ratio of ideas to garbage. I *love* mod.sources. Net.sources is much less useful. >Can't you gurus come >up with a mechanism of control which does not depend on your placing >people of your choice in a position of power to control the flow of >ideas and expressions to the rest of us out here? You could always volunteer to become a moderator. -- The Miami Police Department's Vice Squad has an annual budget of $1.5M. Each episode of the TV show "Miami Vice" costs $1.6M. Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (11/02/85)
In article <5647@amdcad.UUCP>, jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) writes: >In article <687@ucsfcgl.UUCP> arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold) writes: >>Not to jump on Eli, but this ain't too cool an idea. The problem >>The only solution is to eliminate net.sources.* in favor of mod.sources.* >> Ken Arnold >The problem with mod.anything has always been that the moderator >'evaluates' the posting. His criteria will vary according to: > 1) His beliefs. > 2) How much time he has. >What happened to 'the free interchange of ideas'. Can't you gurus come >up with a mechanism of control which does not depend on your placing >people of your choice in a position of power to control the flow of >ideas and expressions to the rest of us out here? > Jim Budler Why not a system where the moderator does not try to "evaluate" what he/she gets but simply stores it, whatever it be (good or bad) and then posts a short article telling what it is and where to get it. Follow-on items (like bug fixes, etc.) would be kept in association with the source, of course. Someone objected that this could create a lot more uucp traffic than does netnews, for a popular source. Unfortunately this could be true for a local situation, though at least a lot of sites that could not care less about that source might then not be burdened. Perhaps a "chain-letter" distribution could be worked out where if several people on one machine or a closely tied group of machines put in requests for a source while a long distance from the moderator, one of them would be sent the source with a request to pass a copy on to the other people who requested it in that group. This might produce some problems if somebody forgets or is just plain hostile, but the others would be sent a brief note from the moderator telling them that this has been initiated, and at the worst, the moderator would need to send another copy if somebody complained it had been lost or for- gotten. In order for this to work, perhaps a buffer period of a few days for requests for a given source would be maintained by the moderator. Is this all wet, or what??? -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (11/02/85)
> From: stanly@unmvax.UUCP > I have a question... If I made a new version of hack 9001 and posted: > Hay! I have a hack! send me mail if you want one. > I get 300 letters saying : "I want hack". I then send out 300 > copies at ~600K for each one or 180Mg of data. Thats about > (at 1200 Baud) 16 days worth of phone time for my machine > alone... If you want to provide software, you've either got to make the people who want the software pay for the service, or supply the service yourself. Better your machine get tied up sending out mail requests than everyone else's machine getting tied up rnewsing your sources. You can encourage them to dial up your machine, give them the uucp password, and leave the sources in a public area. > Golly... I just made a new version of news. 100 people want it. > 15 of them have paths that are through ihnp4. Well... 15 sources of news > for a while in ihnp4's spool directory will not be that bad. Well, there would probably be 15 sources of news in ihnp4's spool directory anyway, because of ihnp4's news feeds. I can accept the posting of certain articles to mod.sources.* which are of potential benefit to the whole net, like the new news sources, but some of the others, like hack sources, fixes to sendmail.cf, fixes to 4.2bsd, etc. which the whole net doesn't have use for don't need to be in mod.sources.*, they can be obtained in the fashion I described above. -- It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under. Greg Skinner (gregbo) {decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds gds@mit-eddie.mit.edu
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/03/85)
> > The problem with mod.anything has always been that the moderator > 'evaluates' the posting. His criteria will vary according to: > > 1) His beliefs. > 2) How much time he has. > > What happened to 'the free interchange of ideas'. Free interchange of ideas? While I am generally opposed to moderated discussion groups for these reasons, these arguemnts just do not hold water for the sources groups. The source groups are by definition, not discussion groups and a year or so ago we actually split off discussion groups like the bug-group and the wanted-group to keep discussions out of net.sources. It is not going to hurt the free exchange of ideas any if the latest version of the terminal lock-up program takes three or four days to get past the moderators busy schedule. And it doesn't take a whole lot of insight on the part of the moderator to determine what is source and what is misposted. I heartily cast my vote that such archival groups such as net.sources.* and the proposed net.doc group be moderated. -Ron
mjg@ecsvax.UUCP (Michael Gingell) (11/03/85)
I think removing net.sources is (almost) the dumbest thing I ever heard. It contains far more interesting stuff than the censored - oops moderated source newsgroup. Personally I would never trade reading a censored newspaper for a one published without restriction. If you don't like it don't subscribe to it. If enough people did that it would die by itself but I don t think it will because it provides a service that people want. Mike Gingell ..decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!mjg
jpn@teddy.UUCP (11/03/85)
>>The problem with mod.anything has always been that the moderator >>'evaluates' the posting. > >That's not a problem, that's a feature. > >>What happened to 'the free interchange of ideas'. > >Free interchange of garbage and flames is more like it. We're trying to >increase the ratio of ideas to garbage. I *love* mod.sources. Net.sources >is much less useful. Just to clarify the issue, as moderator of mod.sources, I have tried NOT to do a whole lot of 'evaluating' postings. My policy has been that just about any posting that belongs in a "sources" newsgroup would be passed through (meaning I will reject any article that is not source code). Actually, I have criticized for being too "easy" - but my feeling is that a moderator is not necessarily the same as an editor - especially for a group like mod.sources. Mod.sources was intended to filter out the "garbage and flames" and to prevent repeated postings of the same program. I don't particularly like "censorship", either. But let's face it, the noise level of net.sources is getting pretty high! John P. Nelson, Moderator, mod.sources (please submit sources to: panda!sources) (decvax!genrad!panda!jpn seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!jpn)
sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber) (11/04/85)
>In article <245@mit-eddie.UUCP> gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) writes: >>There is no *demonstrated need* for the posting of sources to the whole >>net. Many sites do not allow their users to play games, so there is no >>need for those hosts to have the sources to games on their machine. >>Furthermore, many sites don't even care to see that a new sendmail.cf >>has been posted (they don't run sendmail). In general, there isn't a >>need for all the sites to have all the software peole want to post. If >>someone wants software they should mail the authors for it. >>Subsequently, mod.sources can be used for the posting of *announcements* >>of available software. > >I disagree. The posting of sources via mod and/or net.sources is perhaps >the most useful information I get from usenet. Your arguments relating to >the content of those postings indeed point-up recent problems in net.sources, >but at least some of that can be handled in software (no followups to >net.sources, putting in a reminder that requests for sources should be posted >to net.wanted.sources, etc.). I am sure that not ALL sites want ALL software >that is posted, but I am sure that most sites want most of it. I think >distribution via mail would only clog the system more than sending it out >via net.sources. > >> >>A good example would be the posting of the news sources. The majority >>of sites are not running the latest version of news, and have no >>intentions of converting to the newest news when the newest news >>arrives. They need not be burdened with the news sources typing up >>their phone lines and occupying their disk space. When they want to >>upgrade, they can request the news sources by mail. >> > >I believe this is a good example for KEEPING net.sources. I believe that >most sites would upgrade given the choice. If the sources are not >sent out, there is no choice. I also belive that it helps to send it >out at once so that neighboring sites can cooperate to get the new version >up and running between their sites. > >> >>To sum up, net.sources.* should be rmgrouped. Mod.sources.* should >>remain, with stict controls on the content of the group by the >>moderator. Submitters should be *encouraged strongly* to post requests >>for or advertisements of software, and only in extreme cases of need >>should large sources be posted to the net. This goes for the posting of >>bugs and shareware as well. >>-- >>It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under. >> >>Greg Skinner (gregbo) >>{decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds >>gds@mit-eddie.mit.edu > >To sum up my point-of-view, net.sources should not be rmgrouped. 2.10.3 >should be released (and rn modified) to enforce no followups to net.sources >and a message should be displayed to the user asking that requests for repostings >should go to net.wanted.sources. > >My argument does not deal with sharware at all. I consider that a different issue. >The sources I refer to are those that have no conpensation to the author attached >to them (other than pats on the back). > -- Stan uucp:{ihnp4!shell,rice}!neuro1!sob Opinions expressed Olan ARPA:sob@rice.arpa here are ONLY mine & Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)660-9262 noone else's.
ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (0058) (11/04/85)
> > From: stanly@unmvax.UUCP > > > I have a question... If I made a new version of hack 9001 and posted: > > Hay! I have a hack! send me mail if you want one. > > > I get 300 letters saying : "I want hack". I then send out 300 > > copies at ~600K for each one or 180Mg of data. Thats about > > (at 1200 Baud) 16 days worth of phone time for my machine > > alone... > > If you want to provide software, you've either got to make the people > who want the software pay for the service, or supply the service > yourself. Better your machine get tied up sending out mail requests > than everyone else's machine getting tied up rnewsing your sources. > You can encourage them to dial up your machine, give them the uucp > password, and leave the sources in a public area. > How about swapping tapes for large items like hack? If they send you the tape and a return mailer, it isn't much more work for the sender than e-mailing. As I keep all sources on tape anyway, it's the same amount for me. I grant it costs a few buck$ for the postage, but the phone bill may well be more. I tried to send out a chain reel that went from site to site, hopefully accumulating new games as it went. It got into troubles somewhere around the fifth site it went to. I would consider admistering a second chain tape, containing standard collectables. Those interested in reducing the e-mail problem AND providing a games service should mail me, saying what they will do for this project and what sources they will kick into the reel and what sources they want. {dual,lll-crg,ihnp4!ucbvax}!ucdavis!vega!ccrdave
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (11/04/85)
PLEASE move this discussion out of net.sources and into net.news where
it belongs.
Thank YOU!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma.UUCP or
915 Patterson Office Tower {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
University of Kentucky ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA
Lexington, Ky. 40506-0027 BITNET: sean@UKMA.BITNETjimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) (11/04/85)
In article <476@brl-sem.ARPA> ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: >> >> The problem with mod.anything has always been that the moderator >> 'evaluates' the posting. His criteria will vary according to: >> >> 1) His beliefs. >> 2) How much time he has. >> >> What happened to 'the free interchange of ideas'. > >Free interchange of ideas? While I am generally opposed to moderated >discussion groups for these reasons, these arguemnts just do not hold >water for the sources groups. The source groups are by definition, not >discussion groups and a year or so ago we actually split off discussion > >-Ron Since when is someone's source code not ideas? I didn't say anything about discussion. Life would be much different here without less. Someone posted bgrep. A few days later someone posted bm, a better implementation of the same algorithm. Isn't that an interchange of ideas. Your restricted idea of what constitutes an idea demonstrates perfectly my point about the problem with moderated source groups. Even a game source has been useful to me in gleaning a subroutine or function useful to me in my work. I don't just take these sources and compile them, I find out how they work and I learn from the author's experience. I was surprised to see a well known software author come out against the sources groups the other day. I guess he doesn't remember that one of the things he is best known for is work on a 'shudder' game. Would he be as well known or respected today if his University had not allowed him to 'waste' his time on a game, or he had not been able to distribute it 'free' for no 'commercial' gain across the world America, and the world. He learned a lot developing that game, I learned a lot on how to use 'curses' from sources to that game, and I'm sure that it never would have happened if the contenplated restrictive policy had existed then. I have a much simpler answer to most of the problems. Eliminate the 'followup' capability from news software. I'm sure this could be done at backbone sites by some inteligent gleaning of headers, and perhaps some effort at local sites to remove the commands from the various news reading software. I know this won't guarantee anything, but given human nature, the extra work needed to exit the news software, edit a captured article, and post it will reduce traffic significantly. Another simple change would be to prevent postings to multiple groups. Why post six copies, choose the MOST appropriate group. If the author of an article feels it MUST be in more than one group, he can make the extra effort of posting it several times. Currently, the ease with which you can place multiple group names in a posting almost guarentees a lack of concern about where it actually should belong. -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200 Bogus newsgroup: net.news: Move to end of .newsrc[yn^L]? Don't be disctators, use thought.
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/06/85)
> Since when is someone's source code not ideas? I didn't say anything about > discussion. Life would be much different here without less. > > Someone posted bgrep. A few days later someone posted bm, a better > implementation of the same algorithm. > > Isn't that an interchange of ideas. No, look up interchange in the dictionary. It means to give and recieve, reciprically. Net.sources is distribution, not interchange. Net groups are ideal for conversation. They don't work well as a distribution mechanism. > Your restricted idea of what constitutes an idea demonstrates perfectly > my point about the problem with moderated source groups. Even > a game source has been useful to me in gleaning a subroutine or function > useful to me in my work. I don't just take these sources and compile > them, I find out how they work and I learn from the author's experience. Eh? I never said that it wasn't an idea, I said it wasn't interchange. What is the difference in having a recognized respected moderator or some Bozo fudging CANCEL messages for all the articles in net.sources he doesn't like. > > Another simple change would be to prevent postings to multiple groups. Why > post six copies, choose the MOST appropriate group. If the author of > an article feels it MUST be in more than one group, he can make the > extra effort of posting it several times. > Encouraging multiple postings would be worse. Most news software knows how to deal with one article posted multiple places intelligently. Perhaps more idiot user handholding should be added to postnews? WAIT, there are two discussions going here. One is that someone published a hit list of groups like net.sources.mac that should be deleted. Big deal, it wa probably just full of hot air. Really valid groups will keep getting recreated even if some oligarchy decides they are worthless and deletes them. What we were discussing is the advantages of using MOD instead of NET for distribution style news groups. Currently, I think the reason mod. sources is not being used is ignorance. People who either don't know about mod.sources or don't know how to post to MOD groups. The longevity of your program is likely to be much larger going through a MOD group than one I have to expire weekly to keep my disk space in line. -Ron
ken@rochester.UUCP (and Vicki Herrieschopper) (11/06/85)
[Flame on]
While I realize the future of this newsgroup is being debated in
net.news.group, inappropriate postings are one of the reasons cited for
removing this group.
Take net.sources out of your group list, PLEASE! Your arguments don't
belong here! Thank you.
[Flame off]
To justify this posting, here is a little shell script I use for
counting the number of sheets a file will need on the printer. It is
too small to bother to shar.
#! /bin/sh
#
# pgc [files]
# prints out the number of lines and pages in a file (or stdin)
# based on the shell variable pagelength
# form feeds will cause it to underestimate the number of pages
#
pagelength=66
if test $# -lt 1
then
nlines=`wc -l | awk '{print $1}'`
npages=`expr '(' $nlines + $pagelength - 1 ')' / $pagelength`
echo stdin: $nlines lines, $npages pages
else
totlines=0; totpages=0
for i
do
nlines=`wc -l $i | awk '{print $1}'`
npages=`expr '(' $nlines + $pagelength - 1 ')' / $pagelength`
totlines=`expr $totlines + $nlines`
totpages=`expr $totpages + $npages`
echo ${i}: $nlines lines, $npages pages
done
echo Total: $totlines lines, $totpages pages
fi
--
UUCP: ..!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!ken ARPA: ken@rochester.arpa
USnail: Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Rochester, NY 14627. Voice: Ken!spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (11/07/85)
In article <683@ecsvax.UUCP> mjg@ecsvax.UUCP (Michael Gingell) writes: >I think removing net.sources is (almost) the dumbest thing I >ever heard. It contains far more interesting stuff than the >censored - oops moderated source newsgroup. Personally I would >never trade reading a censored newspaper for a one published >without restriction. As someone who believes moderated groups to be one of the only ways the net can survive, I must ask Michael (and others with the same point of view): What newspapers do you read which have no editors? Why do people confuse moderation with censorship? Are the concepts really that difficult to grasp? -- Gene "wedding done, thesis to go" Spafford The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ Relay.CS.NET uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf
bytebug@felix.UUCP (Roger L. Long) (11/08/85)
In article <5771@amdcad.UUCP> jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) writes: > Your restricted idea of what constitutes an idea demonstrates perfectly > my point about the problem with moderated source groups. Even > a game source has been useful to me in gleaning a subroutine or function > useful to me in my work. I don't just take these sources and compile > them, I find out how they work and I learn from the author's experience. As the person who volunteered, please be assured that my idea of a moderated sources group for the Macintosh would NOT mean censoring what got posted AS LONG AS IT'S A SOURCE OR EXECUTABLE. I intend to get rid of multiple postings, posting of comments which belong in net.micro.mac, and other "noise". > I have a much simpler answer to most of the problems. Eliminate the > 'followup' capability from news software. I'm sure this could be > done at backbone sites by some inteligent gleaning of headers, and > perhaps some effort at local sites to remove the commands from the > various news reading software. I know this won't guarantee anything, but > given human nature, the extra work needed to exit the news software, edit > a captured article, and post it will reduce traffic significantly. Come on... you commented in the beginning of your posting about the free interchange of ideas. Being able to followup to someone's posting with your thoughts is *quite* useful. > Another simple change would be to prevent postings to multiple groups. Why > post six copies, choose the MOST appropriate group. If the author of > an article feels it MUST be in more than one group, he can make the > extra effort of posting it several times. Currently, the ease with which > you can place multiple group names in a posting almost guarantees a lack > of concern about where it actually should belong. Perhaps you misunderstand the multiple posting mechanism. Articles directed to multiple newsgroups are only posted once and are implemented by the news software as unix "links" to articles in each newsgroup. Posting an article to multiple newsgroup only incurs additional cost to the net in causing followups to continue to be posted to multiple newsgroups, which can annoy people who feel the original posting or the followups have no business in *their* newsgroup. It also means that more people are exposed to the original article, perhaps causing more people to followup on it. Perhaps an answer to this would be to REQUIRE a "Followup-To" header line listing one newsgroup when an article is posted to multiple newsgroups. This would require the author to choose what he thought was the most appropriate newsgroup to continue the bulk of the discussion. Comments? Please note that this discussion has been carried out in BOTH net.news.group and net.sources. It is my intention that such commentary NOT be carried in a sources newsgroup and that changing the sources newsgroups to moderated groups would only filter out such commentary. Additionally, requiring the original poster of "As long as we are taliking about rmgrouping ..." to have specified followups going to net.news.group ONLY would have eliminated most of the noise that has been posted to net.sources. I have included a Followup-To header in this article, so that further followups to my thoughts will only go to net.news.group. -- roger long filenet corp trwrb!felix!bytebug
campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (11/08/85)
> .... Personally I would > never trade reading a censored newspaper for a one published > without restriction. > Mike Gingell ..decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!mjg *ALL* newspapers are "censored", but a more correct word for it is "edited". I have never heard of a publication that will just blindly publish ANYTHING that walks in off the street, uncut. And if there were such a publication, you can bet no one would read it. -- Larry Campbell decvax!genrad The Boston Software Works, Inc. \ 120 Fulton St. seismo!harvard!wjh12!maynard!campbell Boston MA 02109 / / ihnp4 cbosgd ARPA: maynard.UUCP:campbell@harvard.ARPA
revc@gwsd.UUCP (Bob Van Cleef) (11/09/85)
> > I propose that we remove net.sources and only allow the posting of > > sources in mod.sources.* for the following reasons: I would like net.sources to go away for a different reason. Somewhere along the road someone is not forwarding net.sources, but we are getting mod.sources. That means I do not get a chance to see all of the 'neat' things that do not make it to mod.sources. -- Bob Van Cleef {ihnp4|akgua|decvax|dcdwest|ucbvax} (619) 457-2701 ...sdcsvax!gwsd!revc Gateway Computer Systems CompuServe - [71565,533] 4980 Carroll Canyon Road San Diego, CA 92121
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (11/10/85)
Usenet has grown to the point where it can become a burden on
the backbone systems. Putting more weight on the 'moderators', who
generally derive little benefit for their efforts won't alleviate
the problem. Commercial systems can justify the extra work and thus
put up with more 'abuse' (the word really isn't the right word for
the situation, but I can't think of a better one).
I don't think the 'free interchange of ideas' can work is a
non-homogeneous crowd 'for free'. As a moderator on BIX and a user
of Compuserve, as much as I would prefer 'free' systems, I think
Commercial systems are the future.
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
Compuserve: 72205,541
MTS at WU: GKL6rap@oliven.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (11/12/85)
> The problem with mod.anything has always been that the moderator > 'evaluates' the posting. His criteria will vary according to: > > 1) His beliefs. > 2) How much time he has. > > What happened to 'the free interchange of ideas'. Can't you gurus come > up with a mechanism of control which does not depend on your placing > people of your choice in a position of power to control the flow of > ideas and expressions to the rest of us out here? > -- > Jim Budler > Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. > (408) 749-5806 > Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb > Compuserve: 72415,1200 I have to agree with Jim. I have been away from the net for a while due to lack of time. I've spot checked from time to time and found an alarming rate of moderated news groups croping up. If this keeps up I just won't start reading the net anymore. I think a lot of other people will feel the same way. ( The best way to kill something is to strangle it through a moderator. No offense to moderators. ) I can't take the time to go through 400 to 500 line digests when only 20 lines will be of interest to me. And I've seen this in the new moderated newsgroups. I've just unsubscribed to most of them for this reason. I also can't take the time to argue against the ideas of people like Ken Arndt who's posting prompted the reply that this folowup is replying to. I just don't like his ideas. They seem very restrictive and opressive to me. This reply is too long. Hit your "n" now. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber) (11/12/85)
In article <48@utastro.UUCP> nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >What postal service do you use that reads your mail, and tears it up if >it is not "relevant"? >-- >Ed Nather >Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin >{allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather >nather@astro.UTEXAS.EDU I thought the mail command was used to send mail. I also thought that posting news is different from sending mail. Did I miss something here? Is someone censoring stuff sent with the mail command? -- Stan uucp:{ihnp4!shell,rice}!neuro1!sob Opinions expressed Olan ARPA:sob@rice.arpa here are ONLY mine & Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)660-9262 noone else's.
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (11/13/85)
In article <451@oliven.UUCP> rap@oliven.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) writes: >I can't take the time to go through 400 to 500 line digests when only >20 lines will be of interest to me. And I've seen this in the new >moderated newsgroups. I've just unsubscribed to most of them for this >reason. I don't understand this at all. When I come back from a 1 week trip, I dread catching up on my news. I would much rather go through 10 or 20 messages that a moderator agrees contribute something to the discussion than through 100-200 messages that are full of duplicates, noise, and mistakes. In the current situation, I use the "catchup" command a lot and miss potentially useful information. Perhaps Mr. Pease is confusing moderation with digestification. But even in that case, the above argument only makes sense if digests aren't grouped into useful topics. Most moderated newsgroups are not digests, and most digests are grouped so that one digest talks about only one subject. Mark Horton
kenyon@nmtvax.UUCP (11/16/85)
In article <> campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >> .... Personally I would >> never trade reading a censored newspaper for a one published >> without restriction. >> Mike Gingell ..decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!mjg > >*ALL* newspapers are "censored", but a more correct word for it >is "edited". I have never heard of a publication that will just... >Larry Campbell decvax!genrad What's this doing in net.sources? This discussion is one more reason to go fully moderated. The only problem is that we don't know if the moderator for a group is biased or not... How do we make sure that the moderator isn't biased? We can't. That's why each of us must be the moderator of what we post. (Sorry 'bout the philosphy, but I read net.sources for program info not discussions about moderated newsgroups.) -- Robert Kenyon ...ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!kenyon Your father was a mother and your hamster smells of eldeberries!
bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (11/17/85)
In article <48@utastro.UUCP> nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: > >What postal service do you use that reads your mail, and tears it up if >it is not "relevant"? Since when is your mail being censored? News is not mail. I don't know about other sites, but I already keep watch over news posted at ecsvax to be sure it does not violate good taste or the more explicit proscriptions of the law. Fortunately I have only had to excercize the perogative of killing an article once. In other words at least at some sites, news is already edited. -- Byron Howes System Manager -- NCECS ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch