pwd@pid.UUCP (Philip W. Dalrymple) (11/11/85)
In article <45100015@infoswx> bees@infoswx.UUCP writes: > >Isn't it time to create a net.sources.amiga and also decide on >a standard for posting binary, ala BINHEX or what ever is best? Why don't we use source so that the code can be changed as well as used. one of the biggest problems with net.sources.mac is that it is in large part not source code but binary. > >I vote yea... please vote, too. This and all responses should >be cross posted here and to net.news.group. If response is >great enough, the group will be created. I must say that I would rather wait a while until more people get there systems and some real source (like the shells that have been talked about) are posted. For now net.micro.amiga is not too full to talk about spliting it in two parts. I included all of the first artical because it was NOT posted to net.news.group followup-to will go to net.news.group only (unless you want to change it) > >Ray Davis >Teknekron Infoswitch, Richardson, TX >infoswx!bees, (214)644-0570 -- Philip Dalrymple akgua!pid!pwd 404/429-8266 (voice)
jef@lbl-rtsg.arpa (11/13/85)
From: jef@lbl-rtsg.arpa There are three options: 1) talk in net.micro.amiga and sources in net.micro.amiga; 2) talk in net.micro.amiga and sources in net.sources; 3) talk in met.micro.amiga and sources in net.sources.amiga. I would just like to point out that if you Usenet folks decide on option 2, there will be no way to get the sources to us Internet folks. So please, either post sources here or create a net.sources.amiga, but DON'T put Amiga sources in net.sources. Anyway, what's the big deal about creating a new newsgroup? It's just another line in a file. We'll have the same amount of traffic either way. Or are newsgroups implemented in some totally brain-damaged fashion that I don't want to hear about? --- Jef
djz@spice.cs.cmu.edu (11/13/85)
From: Daniel.Zigmond@SPICE.CS.CMU.EDU I think a net.sources.amiga would be useful, but I DO NOT feel it should be exclusively source code. I imagine (as is the case with net.sources.mac) that much of the code distributed on the net will be useful to non-devlopers who do not have the Lattice compiler. I would opt for posting both source and binary to maximize the usefulness of each submission. Dan
sgt@alice.UucP (Steve Tell) (11/14/85)
I feel that I must add my humble opinion to the debate currently raging about where to post source. It matters not to me whether I have to read net.sources.amiga or net.micro.amiga, what I am concerned with is the issue of posting binaries. I would prefer to see binaries strongly discouraged on the net. For one thing, if an error somehow creeps into the text, it would be much easier to fix in C source. Secondly, I prefer having the opportunity to understand how the programs I use work and to modify them. Third, it is impractical to port a binary to or from another machine such as a mac or 520ST. Posting of both source and binary would be perfectly fine, as long as the net can put up with the load. If a choice must be made, keep it SOURCE! Steve Tell (At&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ) (..alice!sgt)
neil@amiga.UUCP (Neil Katin) (11/14/85)
There has been some discussion in net.micro.amiga about creating
a new newsgroup for amiga source. net.sources.amiga has been suggested.
As I understand it, the proper method for getting this done is to move
the discussion to net.news.group so other system administrators can
see the discussion. This also relieves net.micro.amiga from the flood
of "yes, lets do it" and "no, lets not" messages.
Unfortunately, most people I know have unsubscribed to net.news.group.
This tends to make the discussion rather one sided. In addition, the
newsgroup is already innundated with a several large flaming discussions:
removing net.bizzare
removing net.flame
removing net.internat
"fear and loathing on the clouds"
etc.
To those who think they REALLY know the rules: what now?
I am willing to archive the group. I am also willing to moderate it
if it is decided that mod.source.amiga is a better bet.
A note: I work for Commodore-Amiga, and am not a disinterested party.
Neil Katin
pyramid!amiga!neil
408-395-6616cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel M. Rives) (11/15/85)
I previously voiced (?) a simple straightforward YEA vote for net.sources.amiga.
After reading some of the other comments here, I would like to amend my vote.
Ammendment #1: I strongly agree with those who wish to discourage binary
propogation on the net.
Ammendment #2: If we are to have source-only postings, then why not have
a single news group to handle postings for all 68000 machines.
(Re: Robert Viduya's recent posting).
As an after thought, I would like to mention that one difficulty which is bound
to crop up in a generalized net.source post is the use of system dependent
sub-routines (or macros). Sources which may strong use of amiga's Sprite
graphics are not likely to be easily convertable to the Mac (Or are they? I
am certainly no expert on either machine.).
the never-present whisper spirit
Joel Rives
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr
"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are!"
<< Buckaroo Banzai >>peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/16/85)
> net.sources.mac) that much of the code distributed on the net will be > useful to non-devlopers who do not have the Lattice compiler. I would > opt for posting both source and binary to maximize the usefulness of > each submission. If you must do that at least have a seperate group for each type, so when the net cracks down on the binaries they won't cut us off altogether. -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
perry@well.UUCP (Perry S. Kivolowitz) (11/18/85)
Haven't we passed around enough bytes dealing with how to create a net.sources for the AMIGA. Take a step back and consider how inefficient a mass commun- ication medium the net is. Really, there's been more traffic than ever saying there's too much traffic on the net. Someone should just set something up. Chances are the way chosen will directly benefit a significant fraction of those concerned. I am confident that the rest of the interested public will be provided for. And now that I've given you MY vote let me end by saying to all those people who send in notes citing thirty lines of other people's messages just to say ``Me too'' or ``I vote XXX'' at the end: Nobody bloody well gives a crushed tird about your boolean opinions. If you have something worth while to add, then by all means do so but we don't need parasitic messages clogging the netways. Now excuse me while I put out the fire on my keyboard. Perry S. Kivolowitz ihnp4!ptsfa!well!perry
heiby@cuae2.UUCP (Heiby) (11/19/85)
In article <248@amiga.amiga.UUCP> neil@rocky.UUCP (Neil Katin) writes: > >There has been some discussion in net.micro.amiga about creating >a new newsgroup for amiga source. net.sources.amiga has been suggested. There have been various micro-computers in the marketplace for many years. For some time, CP/M-80 systems reigned supreme. There are still quite a few of them out there. (I have a CP/M-80 system, myself.) You don't see much CP/M software getting posted to the net, though, do you? You see, there is this thing called a "user group" that has meetings every now and then and provides a means by which software can be distributed to its members. I belonged to such a group when I lived in Minneapolis. It cost me about $15/yr to belong and included a monthly newsletter telling what was going to happen at the monthly meeting. I could bring floppy disks to the meeting with about $1/each (for the club treasury) and get a copy of any of the 150+ floppies full of public domain software in the club library (up to 10/month). This is what should be done with amiga source. This is what should be done with mac source. I use the word "source" loosely here. I have 1477 blocks in net.sources.mac on my machine. I am not (yet) expiring it early. I did a "tail -20" on the entire contents of the newsgroup and found *seven* (7) out of 47 files containing what looked like SOURCE. The rest contained encoded binary or discussion or requests of one kind or another. In summary, if it must exist, let's limit it to *source*. I believe that the concept of a "user group" is the best way to distribute such material. I believe that machine-dependent binaries do not belong on this medium. -- Ron Heiby {NAC|ihnp4}!cuae2!heiby Moderator: mod.newprod & mod.unix AT&T-IS, /app/eng, Lisle, IL (312) 810-6109 "I am not a number! I am a free man!" (#6)
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (11/21/85)
In article <1030@gitpyr.UUCP> cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel M. Rives) writes: > >As an after thought, I would like to mention that one difficulty which is bound >to crop up in a generalized net.source post is the use of system dependent >sub-routines (or macros). Sources which may strong use of amiga's Sprite >graphics are not likely to be easily convertable to the Mac (Or are they? I >am certainly no expert on either machine.). > >Joel Rives It's worse than that. The Mac Finder, GEM (the Atari ST) and Intuition (Amiga) are CHOCK FULL of special routines that do windowing, menus, graphics, text, mouse etc. for the applications, (and they are quite different) such that applications written for any of the above mentioned environments will not port without LOTS of cutting and pasting and hacking and massaging on them, to say nothing of individual hardware and/or compiler differences. Most applications that are worth anything are largely comprised of code that uses these special routines. The bottom line is, it is a BIG PAIN to port between environments, and, you have to know LOTS about BOTH involved environments, without getting the similar features confused. This is assuming their hardware differences do not affect the application significantly. It is concievable that agreed-upon-syntax 'C' librarys could be generated that would allow a higher degree of portability between these environments, but someone is going to have to do a heck of a lot of study of the different environments to determine what the least common denominators are. Something that I certainly don't have the time or inclination to do. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd # cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa
dave@heurikon.UUCP (Dave Scidmore) (11/22/85)
> .... I believe > that the concept of a "user group" is the best way to distribute such > material. Are the good people at Commodore, and all the Amiga developers, and Amiga owners who write code and then post it to the net going to show up at my local users group (which does not yet exist) and distribute their programs? If they do who is going to pay for their airlines ticket? Hmmmm. Dave Scidmore
bruceb@amiga.UUCP (Bruce Barrett) (11/25/85)
In article <968@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >In article <1030@gitpyr.UUCP> cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel M. Rives) writes: >> >>As an after thought, I would like to mention that one difficulty which is bound >>to crop up in a generalized net.source post is the use of system dependent >>sub-routines (or macros). Sources which may strong use of amiga's Sprite >>graphics are not likely to be easily convertable to the Mac (Or are they? I >>am certainly no expert on either machine.). >> >>Joel Rives > >It's worse than that.The Mac Finder, GEM (the Atari ST) and Intuition (Amiga) >are CHOCK FULL of special routines that do windowing, menus, graphics, text, >mouse etc. for the applications, (and they are quite different) such that >applications written for any of the above mentioned environments will not >port without LOTS of cutting and pasting and hacking and massaging on them, >to say nothing of individual hardware and/or compiler differences. Most >applications that are worth anything are largely comprised of code that uses >these special routines. The bottom line is, it is a BIG PAIN to port between >environments, and, you have to know LOTS about BOTH involved environments, >without getting the similar features confused. This is assuming their >hardware differences do not affect the application significantly. > >It is concievable that agreed-upon-syntax 'C' librarys could be >generated that would allow a higher degree of portability between these >environments, but someone is going to have to do a heck of a lot of study >of the different environments to determine what the least common denominators >are. Something that I certainly don't have the time or inclination to do. > >Keith Doyle RUMOR has it that Lattice anounced a new product at Comdex that allows you to use Apple Mac calling conventions to create software for the Amiga. If this works it would make porting much eaiser. Has anyone seen this yet? Can you do a review? Thanks, BruceB
pajb@ulysses.UUCP (Paul Bennett) (11/27/85)
From: bruceb@amiga.UUCP (Bruce Barrett) Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga Date: 24 Nov 85 22:30:45 GMT Reply-To: bruceb@hunter.UUCP (Bruce Barrett) Keywords: sources In article <968@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >In article <1030@gitpyr.UUCP> cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel M. Rives) writes: <ALL OF THE ABOVE TWO MESSAGES>...... RUMOR has it that Lattice anounced a new product at Comdex that allows you to use Apple Mac calling conventions to create software for the Amiga. If this works it would make porting much eaiser. Has anyone seen this yet? Can you do a review? Thanks, BruceB Bruce, It's really nice to get all this info, but PLEASE - *don't* include all the previous messages !!!! We get enough guff over the network as it is, I can hardly keep up with it - anything to keep it manageable ! I'm sure the system admin will agree, too. I'm posting this to the net so every one can read, digest, and ... -- Paul. UUCP: {decvax,allegra,vax135,ucbvax}!ulysses!circe!pajb DDD: (201) 582 7346 USPS: AT&T Bell Labs, Room 5E-103, Murray Hill, NJ 07974 .. I don't care WHO you are, you're not walking on the water while I'M fishing.