chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/02/86)
Last week I posted a note warning of possible problems with the network
screwing up files posted to net.sources.mac. Thanks to the large number
of people who took the time to answer my questions (72 and counting!) I
think I've been able to track down the problems.
First of all, it quickly became obvious that the vast majority of the net
DID get the posting correctly in comparison to the group that was having
problems. So, as far as the net in general is concerned, I don't think
there is a problem -- most of the net gets most of the postings correctly
most of the time, so mostly there isn't any trouble.
Two definite glitches did show up, however:
o Pilot Error: In large files split up over multiple postings, it is
rather easy to accidently delete an extra line, put things together
in the wrong order and generally get things mucked up so they
won't work.
Solutions: (1) BE CAREFUL. If something doesn't work, go back to
your news reader, save all the files over again (better yet, keep
copies of all the original stuff) and try once more. It is quite
likely that the files are right and that you are wrong, and that you
just didn't catch it.
On a longer term, I think someone (I don't have the time,
unfortunately) should look at some way to automate this process.
Something like shar that split things up and figure out how to put
them all back together again without a lot of manual cut and paste.
I also suggest this program pass along some kind of checksumming
(the unix 'sum' command would work fine) for each piece and for the
file as a whole so you can tell before downloading or using xbin
whether the file has been zapped in transit.
o Xbin is buggy!: Almost all of the problems we saw with Boston II was with
xbin! Some people were able to get it through xbin, most were not.
Many people who could not get xbin to tear apart the file were able
to download it and use BinHex just fine. I vaguely remember that
someone found and fixed a bug in xbin a while back -- I bet we're
running into old versions of that program again. I suggest heavily
that someone with a good version of xbin (i.e. one that worked on
Boston, or one from someone who remembers what the bug was and
knows that the thing is fixed) please clue us in and post a good
version of the program. If you have been having problems with bad
files from n.s.m, try downloading and using BinHex instead; I bet
many of your problems go away.
(Just as an editorial comment, I'm never used xbin because I like the idea
of using the BinHex checksumming to verify the download. the difference
between the BinHex file and the size of the component files just isn't that
great, and the extra measure of safety makes me feel a LOT better. Would
YOU like some line noise that got through Xmodem to sit in your binary file,
just waiting to be executed?)
As it stands, I don't think we have much of a problem, fortunately. the net
works better than we thought! People posting things should be careful to
iinclude clear instructions for rebuilding files, and people trying to
download should be careful to follow them. if we do that, and get rid of
xbin, a lot of the problems we've seen should go away.
chuq
chuq
--
:From the lofty realms of Castle Plaid: Chuq Von Rospach
chuq%plaid@sun.COM FidoNet: 125/84 CompuServe: 73317,635
{decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!plaid!chuq
The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your hands
and hoping when a rock or a club will do -- McCloctnik the Lucidmark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (06/04/86)
In article <3808@lanl.ARPA> jad@a.UUCP (John De Vries) writes: >One might even consider it 72 votes FOR the continuation of net. >sources.mac in the future news hierarchy (whatever that may end >up being.) Actually, the plan is for net.sources.mac to be replaced with mod.mac.sources and mod.mac.binaries. The latter groups already exist, but I haven't seen any traffic in them yet. The idea of keeping both groups around for awhile is to give us a chance to work out any problems with the moderated group. If you folks won't use it, then the cutover will have to come cold turkey. The moderator is Roger Long, hplabs!felix!macintosh is the appropriate address to send submissions to. Come on, folks, use the new group. Mark
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (06/05/86)
> In article <3808@lanl.ARPA> jad@a.UUCP (John De Vries) writes: > >One might even consider it 72 votes FOR the continuation of net. > >sources.mac in the future news hierarchy (whatever that may end > >up being.) > > [Mark Horton] > Actually, the plan is for net.sources.mac to be replaced with > mod.mac.sources and mod.mac.binaries. The latter groups already exist, > but I haven't seen any traffic in them yet. The idea of keeping both > groups around for awhile is to give us a chance to work out any > problems with the moderated group. If you folks won't use it, then the > cutover will have to come cold turkey. > > The moderator is Roger Long, hplabs!felix!macintosh is the appropriate > address to send submissions to. Come on, folks, use the new group. Only mod.mac.binaries exists on my machine. It's had exactly one program (to do the Amiga bouncing ball demo). No sources group. I'll use the new groups IF they work. Do they? -- Paul DuBois UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | ARPA: dubois@easter --+-- | Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings | toward the south? Job 39:26
ztf@lanl.ARPA (Zozzles The Freep) (06/05/86)
A Slight Flame. In article <2201@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: > >Actually, the plan is for net.sources.mac to be replaced with >mod.mac.sources and mod.mac.binaries. The latter groups already exist, >but I haven't seen any traffic in them yet. >{etc.} > Mark Amazing. I've been following both net.news and net.news.group for about five months and I've seen only a little discussion about this and never had read this particular solution. But that is not my flame. The thing that riles me is that our site apparently only got the newgroup message for these (and a bunch of other moderated groups) within the last twenty-four hours. Praytell, how can this have only happened here recently when you state that these groups "already exist" as if they HAVE existed for some time and that everyone ought to know about them??? More than that, how could (for example) I have generated any traffic in a group of whose existence I was previously unaware? If there is a simple explanation for this, I will humbly accept correction. ZtF
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (06/06/86)
> In article <2201@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: > > > >Actually, the plan is for net.sources.mac to be replaced with > >mod.mac.sources and mod.mac.binaries. The latter groups already exist, > >but I haven't seen any traffic in them yet. > >{etc.} > > Mark > > Amazing. I've been following both net.news and net.news.group for > about five months and I've seen only a little discussion about this > and never had read this particular solution. But that is not my flame. > > The thing that riles me is that our site apparently only got the > newgroup message for these (and a bunch of other moderated groups) > within the last twenty-four hours. Praytell, how can this have only > happened here recently when you state that these groups "already > exist" as if they HAVE existed for some time and that everyone ought > to know about them??? More than that, how could (for example) I have > generated any traffic in a group of whose existence I was previously > unaware? Well, let's find out what the general distribution of these groups is. What does your site have? We have: net.sources.mac net.micro.mac mod.mac mod.mac.binaries We don't have: mod.mac.sources Anybody else missing any mod groups? How widespread is this problem? -- Paul DuBois UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | ARPA: dubois@easter --+-- | Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings | toward the south? Job 39:26