rfb@h.cs.cmu.edu (Rick Busdiecker) (10/31/85)
I'm positive that this is not where this post belongs, however since I don't
know where this post belongs and it is in response to a post on this
netnews, here it goes.
A problem with Greg's proposed method of distributing software is that it
may actually increase most of the problems which he was hoping to eliminate.
Consider the following situation: An announcement about the availability of
a new version of the source to (insert name of program you hate seeing the
most) is posted to mod.sources. Since this program is such a waste of time
and almost no one is interested in it, only 20 people across the network
actually send mail requesting the sources. Now there are 20 copies of the
source travelling through the network, tying up phone, etc., etc.
Consider the following situation: An announcement about the availability of
a new version of the source to (insert name of the most popular program on
the net) is posted to mod.sources. Since this program is so popular and
almost everyone is interested in it, over 500 people across the network send
mail requesting the sources. Now there are 500 copies of the source
travelling through the network (not to mention the 500 requests which went
through the net first), tying up phone, etc., etc.
I offer this as a practical argument for keeping net.sources. My own
personal reason is much less reasonable, but I bet I'm not the only one who
feels this way; It's easier to get the source. When I'm reading the news, I
can make a single keystroke, then type the name of a file and I have a copy
of the source. Later, i.e. at my leisure, I can go back and look at the
thing, compile it, see if I like it, etc. If I had to send mail to someone
every time, it would be a bigger pain in the ass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Busdiecker ARPA: rfb@cmu-cs-h
Carnegie-Mellon University UUCP: ...!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-h!rfb
Mathematics Department AT&T: (412) 521-1459
USPS: 4145 Murray Ave. 15217
---------------------------------------------------------------------------ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/04/85)
> Consider the following situation: An announcement about the availability of > a new version of the source to (insert name of program you hate seeing the > most) is posted to mod.sources. MOD.SOURCES and NET.SOURCES are not for posting announcement about availability of source. It is for posting source. This other shit belongs in one of the related groups. > > I offer this as a practical argument for keeping net.sources. Well, you're wrong. > I'm reading the news, I > can make a single keystroke, then type the name of a file and I have a copy > of the source. If I had to send mail to someone > every time, it would be a bigger pain in the ass. You can with mod.sources as well. All mod groups do is put a shit-filter on the input. You don't have to mail to people to get the answer. -Ron