gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (01/04/85)
> I think >>net<<.sources.mac is sufficient....
Three points:
[1] Someone will complain that "net.sources is archived automatically
by many sites and they might not want net.sources.mac!" This
merely makes those sites' task somewhat less trivial but it is
simply a software problem. Not an issue.
[2] mod.sources.mac is a good idea but if mod.sources is an example,
the turnaround on this is slow and not many people seem to
use it to post sources. Would Mac users be any different?
[3] What are you going to do when you start getting the
"Does anyone have a copy of MacWidgit?" articles in
net.sources.mac? Will there be a net.wanted.sources.mac,
too?
Things to think about.
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
"Everything you know is wrong"chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuqui Q. Koala) (01/04/85)
>> I think >>net<<.sources.mac is sufficient.... I don't. explanations later. >Three points: > >[1] Someone will complain that "net.sources is archived automatically Most sites are (should) also be archiving mod.sources, so it is really a non-issue regardless of the name. >[2] mod.sources.mac is a good idea but if mod.sources is an example, > the turnaround on this is slow and not many people seem to > use it to post sources. Would Mac users be any different? I can't speak on the turnaround of mod.sources because I don't watch that. If there is a 24 or 48 hour delay, what is the big deal? Realistically sources posted to mod.sources would get to ALL of the net faster because the distribution tends to be wider (for mod.singles anything posted goes to ihnp4, seismo, gatech, hplabs, fortune, and a number of other sites so it gets spread very widely much quicker than it would with a normal posting). Part of the reason mod.all isn't showing a lot of volume is simply that it isn't being pushed while we work out some technical details (this is called shaking out the bugs before we force ourselves to rely on it). From what I have seen most of them are fixed at this point, although I'm probably going to do another sendsys one of these days to see (ack). I think there are some significant advantages to mod.sources.mac. One is the moderator. If this person runs it right it can make life better for everyone-- you have one person who's responsibility it is to make sure that all those myriad requests for macput and macget are handled, someone you KNOW is keeping an archive-- this means you don't have to, since you can always get it later if you change your mind. Someone who keeps duplications from happening (how many variations of SHAR did we see in net.sources recently? 15? 20?) Someone who can help new users figure out how to deal with the software, try to minimize the naive questions so that mod.sources.mac and net.micro.mac can be maximally useful for all users, rather than spending a lot of time rehashing old problems... Some of this can also be done with net.source.mac, true, but if you don't have someone who has been given the responsibility of doing them (and has accepted it by becoming moderator) a lot of it falls through the cracks, and you are back to listening to 35 versions of shar, 15 xlisps, and 25 postings of macput in response to a single request. Not terribly useful, but it does wonders to the net volume and your long distance phone bill. >[3] What are you going to do when you start getting the > "Does anyone have a copy of MacWidgit?" articles in > net.sources.mac? Will there be a net.wanted.sources.mac, > too? net.wanted.mac might not be a bad idea-- perhaps we might even want to consider (due to its popularity) net.mac, net.mac.wanted, etc... who knows? chuq -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Deadbone erotica is the prickly panic of forgotten milleniums, it is the moldy billion year madness that creeps deep along the spinal behind of my mind.
ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) (01/05/85)
> > I think >>net<<.sources.mac is sufficient.... > > Three points: ... > > [3] What are you going to do when you start getting the > "Does anyone have a copy of MacWidgit?" articles in > net.sources.mac? Will there be a net.wanted.sources.mac, > too? > > Things to think about. > -- > Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam > I never received MacWidget. Could you send me a copy? Is it a game, or a DA or what? :-) -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems No one would dare claim these opinions.
chip@t4test.UUCP (Chip Rosenthal) (01/05/85)
> From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) > Date: 4 Jan 85 09:03:52 GMT > > [1] Someone will complain that "net.sources is archived automatically > by many sites and they might not want net.sources.mac!" I've heard this so many times I'm almost beginning to believe it is true. My sys file currently says: SOURCES:net.sources,!net.sources.all::/usr/lib/news/sfar net.sources SOURCES:net.sources.bugs::/usr/lib/news/sfar net.sources.bugs Voila...'net.sources.bugs' articles don't get into my 'net.sources' archive. Am I missing something on this issue, or is the answer as easy as this? > [3] What are you going to do when you start getting the > "Does anyone have a copy of MacWidgit?" articles in > net.sources.mac? Will there be a net.wanted.sources.mac, > too? In chuq's original message he suggested that one of the moderater's responsibilities should be to compile an index. An index would also be a good idea for net.sources, *especially* if the index contained the Message-ID's of the extraneous discussion articles in a format so that I can automatically zap them from my archive. If anybody is interested, I suppose I could volunteer to make such an index. -- Chip Rosenthal, Intel/Santa Clara {cbosgd,idi,intelca,icalqa,kremvax,qubix,ucscc} ! {t4test,t12tst} ! {chip,news}