jr@inset.UUCP (Jim R Oldroyd) (11/02/85)
>[To quote eli@vcvax1.UUCP (eli):] >> I propose that we remove net.sources and only allow the posting of >> sources in mod.sources.* for the following reasons: > > [reasons were given] Here is another agreement. Not only do we spend considerable telephone times on the receipt of sources which are of either NO USE to us, or of NO INTEREST to anyone here, but the sources which we do take off the net, usually contain a high number of bugs and portability errors. Those in the moderated group which I've looked at were somewhat better. As a site which only takes those newsgroups we're interested in, I would encourage the idea of removal of net.sources.* and the introduction of a wider range of mod.sources.* groups. Here is one place where mod.* groups are ideal. I would even like to propose: mod.sources.announce - announcements of available source mod.sources.request - requests for sources. requests would only need to be published if the moderator(s) were unaware of the existence of the desired source. And the following groups for the actual publication of source if the volume of requests are high: mod.sources - for sources which should work everywhere (and where the author has made a deliberate attempt at removing system dependencies) mod.sources.usg mod.sources.bsd - etc and possibly also: mod.sources.mail mod.sources.news mod.sources.games - etc mod.sources.fixes - ?? -- "The Software did it". -- ++ Jim R Oldroyd ++ jr@inset.co.uk (after Jan 1, 1986. `jr@inset.UUCP' before...) ++ ..!mcvax!ukc!inset!jr
eli@vcvax1.UUCP (eli) (11/05/85)
> >[To quote eli@vcvax1.UUCP (eli):] > >> I propose that we remove net.sources and only allow the posting of > >> sources in mod.sources.* for the following reasons: > > > > [reasons were given] Er, slight misunderstanding here. I did not say that net.sources* should go. I was responding to a previous posting that said as much. I am against the removal of the sources groups (mostly out of conservatism; I would rather we talked about it first like we are now). > > Here is another agreement. Not only do we spend considerable telephone > times on the receipt of sources which are of either NO USE to us, or > of NO INTEREST to anyone here, but the sources which we do take off the > net, usually contain a high number of bugs and portability errors. > > Those in the moderated group which I've looked at were somewhat better. > I have been watching the arguments for a mod.sources* to replace a net.sources* and I must admit that this seems like a much better idea. I think that alot of the problems would be aleviated if a moderator could, say, refuse to post *YET ANOTHER WAY TO PRINT FILES IN SWAHILI* (spelling?). The thing that we have to make sure of, then, is that all sites that now receive and enjoy net.sources* would be able to get mod.sources* (lets not leave anyone out in the cold :-) As far as bugs and portability errors, well perhaps a moderator could ditch code that was obviously flawed, but if you get the code for free, who are you to complain that its not perfect? (that last sentence is *not* a flame). Even in "the industry" caveats abound concerning applications that just don't do the job. > -- > "The Software did it". > -- > ++ Jim R Oldroyd > ++ jr@inset.co.uk (after Jan 1, 1986. `jr@inset.UUCP' before...) > ++ ..!mcvax!ukc!inset!jr ---------------------------------------------------- Elias Israel VenturCom, Inc. "you can laugh at my behaviour, but that'll never bother me. say the devil is my saviour, but I don't pay no heed" -- supertramp {cybvax0,mit-eddie}!vcvax1!eli