ruck@sphere.UUCP (John R Ruckstuhl Jr) (11/11/90)
In article <1990Nov3.045636.12735@cs.ucla.edu>, kirkaas@makaha.cs.ucla.edu (paul kirkaas) writes: > Why not just move the whole unix-pc tree under comp.sys.unix-pc, which > is clearly where it belonged in the first place? Surely you'll get many replies, saying essentially: "unix-pc has a separate hierarchy because it evolved separately, ie is separate for historical reasons", and "it hasn't been integrated with the 'comp' hierarchy because there is no true benefit to doing so". Some will argue that "no one can have real troubles getting unix-pc if they make just a small effort". Likely, several people will generously offer a feed of the unix-pc newsgroups, or suggest ways to gain access - perhaps via the digest that Scott Hazen Mueller kindly mails. I now offer a mild rebuttal in the form of a counterexample from my personal experiences. At my previous residence in Colorado Springs, my 3b1, sphere, began exchanging news with hp-lsd. I was (am) a novice at news administration, and it took one month for me to realize that although hp-lsd claimed to be forwarding me unix-pc, I was seeing only parts of some discussions in that newsgroup. Soon I discovered an explanation - I was seeing only those unix-pc articles which were cross-posted to comp.sys.att (a newsgroup in the "standard" distribution). I studied the paths of articles. The path was usually pretty consistant for about 6 hops, from hp-lsd to hp-sdd (California), because most sites in HP ran "notes" instead of some form of "news", and didn't have the ability to exchange articles by NNTP (so HP sites exchanged with each other rather than exchange with other well-connected sites). hp-sdd was the demarcation - they exchanged news with the "outside" world. So any of 6 upstream sites could be the bottleneck. I wrote system administrators upstream and asked politely about unix-pc (notes doesn't support the "sendsys" control message, so I couldn't get this information automatically). Some never responded. Some responded that they didn't carry unix-pc, but would start (thanks hp-sdd, hpcc01, hp-col). Mike Rodriquez at hplabs said, essentially, "I *won't* carry it because I don't see that it is beneficial to HP". I wrote back asking him to reconsider, hoping that he wouldn't apply a criterion to unix-pc that he wouldn't apply to, say, rec.arts.tv.soaps. This logic, and a "spirit of USENET" appeal failed to persuade him. Concurrently with investigating the HP path, I looked at alternative sources in Colorado Springs. DEC had an entry in the maps, so I called the system administrator listed. He'd relocated, and his replacement was out of town for 2 weeks. I was unable to find his alternate. I reached him a few weeks later, and he did indeed receive unix-pc from some DEC-hub somewhere, but he was uncomfortable UUCP'ing outside DEC for "security" reasons, and I didn't feel I had the right to argue with him, since supporting news exchange is a courtesy rather than an obligation (in my opinion). The local branch of University of Colorado was well-fed from UC Boulder, but according to the persons I spoke with, they couldn't provide telephone access because they didn't have the proper hardware. All other sites in Colorado Springs that I knew about (from the regularly posted UUCP maps) were fed solely by hp-lsd. I then made contact with a system administrator at Cray (thanks, David Keaton, Peter Hill) who had an !independent! feed via NNTP with University of Denver who exchanged news with UC Boulder, who exchanged news with ncar who I !knew! was well-connected. They generously allowed me to poll them for unix-pc. I was elated! I saw unix-pc articles which hadn't been cross-posted to comp.sys.att, so I believed I finally had a healthy feed. But two weeks later, I became suspicious again when someone referred to a posting in unix-pc.sources that I never saw. I did a "sendsys". Everyone in ncar!boulder!upikes!aspen!sphere looked fine! So I wrote these system administrators, and determined there was a bottleneck at upikes. Aha! A week later, after a few unreturned letters and calls, I spoke with Randy Hagan at upikes who was quite pleasant, and explained that awhile ago, he'd removed unix-pc from the active file (Ah, I wasn't a sophisticated enough news administrator to think of that possibility). But how did I get the occasional articles which had been posted only to unix-pc, I wondered. He'd accidently left unix-pc.bugs active, so I was just seeing articles which had been (cross-)posted to that newsgroup. He soon reactivated all of the unix-pc newsgroups, and !finally! I had a healthy newsfeed. The interval between original attempt to subscribe to unix-pc and acquiring a healthy newsfeed was 6 months (obviously I didn't work on this full time, but I think I did make considerable effort). I think this is perhaps the most long-winded article I've ever posted. Readers, please accept my apologies. 1. The bottlenecks such as at hplabs and upikes would be much less likely if unix-pc newsgroups were part of the "standard" distribution rather than an "alternative" hierarchy. I believe moving into "comp" would increase distribution of the newsgroups. I think this alone justifies such a move. 2. I will gladly concede that it is easy for anyone to gain access to unix-pc if one is willing to pay, but I assert that news exchange via local telephone call to a friendly neighbor is preferred to a toll call or paid subscription to a service. Some very, very, generous individual in ?RI? once offered to call 3b1's that couldn't get a local feed (did I really read that right?), but some of us prefer not to receive calls because we share one telephone line for data and voice. My experiences have made me more knowledgeable, but I wish them on no one. I hope that my letter convinces others that it is possible to have difficulties acquiring a free feed for unix-pc, and that in the interest of greater distribution of the newsgroup, they will vote for a move if and when such a voting opportunity occurs (even if they themselves do not anticipate access difficulties). > This would also allow us to separate out discussions of 3b1's and 3b2's > and 6386's, which have nothing really to do with each other. The mechanism to separate those discussions do with other machines already exists, viz unix-pc, u3b, and comp.sys.ibm.pc. Best Regards, John. -- John R Ruckstuhl, Jr ruck%sphere@cis.ufl.edu, sphere!ruck University of Florida ruck@cis.ufl.edu, uflorida!ruck
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (11/11/90)
ruck@sphere.UUCP (John R Ruckstuhl Jr) in <315@sphere.UUCP> writes, among other things: " ... Some never responded. Some responded that they didn't carry unix-pc, but would start (thanks hp-sdd, hpcc01, hp-col). Mike Rodriquez at hplabs said, essentially, "I *won't* carry it because I don't see that it is beneficial to HP". I wrote back asking him to reconsider, hoping that he wouldn't apply a criterion to unix-pc that he wouldn't apply to, say, rec.arts.tv.soaps. This logic, and a "spirit of USENET" appeal failed to persuade him. " Yow! My commendations on your sleuthing! I was wondering what was happening there, esp. after NUMEROUS times when the entire unix-pc.* hierarchy would disappear within minutes after arriving, as if someone manually deleted just those files (but leaving on-line a lot of "other" notesgroups that *I* would call questionable and of no possible benefit to HP). And, no, I don't work at H-P Labs, I just occasionally read stuff while there visiting colleagues, attending the Computer Colloquium, etc. The above, coupled with John's other anecdotes, presents a VERY compelling case to initiate inquiry into forming a comp.sys.unix-pc.* hierarchy. I sincerely wish I could devote the time myself, but I've taken on so many other activities that I have no additional "free" time. I would definitely vote "YES" if someone sends out a formal request to form the newsgroup. Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]
dts@quad.sialis.mn.org (David Sandberg) (11/12/90)
In article <35841@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >The above, coupled with John's other anecdotes, presents a VERY compelling >case to initiate inquiry into forming a comp.sys.unix-pc.* hierarchy. I >sincerely wish I could devote the time myself, but I've taken on so many >other activities that I have no additional "free" time. I would definitely >vote "YES" if someone sends out a formal request to form the newsgroup. My first thought is suggest either comp.sys.3b1.* or comp.sys.7300.*; anything but unix-pc again. It would be nice to put an end to the steady stream of IBM PC articles which manage to find their way into this forum. -- \\ David Sandberg \ \\ // dts@quad.sialis.com / "Mobility? We don't need // \\ uunet!umn-cs!sialis!quad!dts \ no stinking mobility!" \\
templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) (11/12/90)
YES! YES! I vote for comp.sys.att.3b1 or 7300 as well. unix-pc may be the name, but we've all heard the story of a boy named Sue. I'm tired of wading through IBM PC stuff. Jeff
gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) (11/12/90)
In article <35841@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >The above, coupled with John's other anecdotes, presents a VERY compelling >case to initiate inquiry into forming a comp.sys.unix-pc.* hierarchy. As with the original thread of this discussion, I would be more inclined to make it comp.sys.3b1.*, rather than comp.sys.unix-pc. Already, we have had several instances of people who have mistakenly posted to this hierarchy thinking it was for PCs running UNIX. I was mildly upset at the thought of the unix-pc hierarchy being so loosely held-together, as was suggested by the article that Thad followed-up to. Although making this hierarchy part of comp.sys would solve some problems, I wonder how much of the comp hierarchy has been censored out before being fed to downstream feeds. -- Gil Kloepfer, Jr. gil@limbic.ssdl.com ...!ames!limbic!gil Southwest Systems Development Labs (Div of ICUS) Houston, Texas
manson@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Manson) (11/12/90)
In article <35841@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >case to initiate inquiry into forming a comp.sys.unix-pc.* hierarchy. I I don't have any arguments for or against moving the groups to something under comp.sys, but I do want to strongly suggest NOT using the name "unix-pc" in the group. comp.sys.3b1 sounds much better, and won't confuse neophytes into posting questions about running Unix on an IBM-PC thingy. I would also encourage giving some thought into renaming the hierarchy to something besides unix-pc.*, if the consensus turns out to be to keep the current arrangement. Not that it's a big deal seeing an occasional post about "can I boot both DOS and Unix on my 286 box", but it is annoying and could be avoided. (Admittedly, I really wouldn't have thought that someone would confuse "unix-pc" to mean Unix running on IBM-PCs, but now that we know...) Bob manson@cis.ohio-state.edu
randy@cctb.wa.com (Randy Orrison) (11/13/90)
In article <35841@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: | The above, coupled with John's other anecdotes, presents a VERY compelling | case to initiate inquiry into forming a comp.sys.unix-pc.* hierarchy. I | sincerely wish I could devote the time myself, but I've taken on so many | other activities that I have no additional "free" time. I would definitely | vote "YES" if someone sends out a formal request to form the newsgroup. I also agree that moving into the comp heirarchy is a good idea, though I do prefer the name comp.sys.3b1.xxx, since we have enough people confusing us with PCs running unix. I'm not worried that anyone will try to exclude discussions of 7300s, any more than we currently exclude CT MiniFrames and our other cousins. So, what groups do we want? comp.sys.3b1 comp.sources.3b1 or comp.sys.3b1.general comp.sys.3b1.uucp comp.sys.3b1.bugs comp.sys.3b1.sources The first set will probably be easier to pass, and there really isn't a lot of traffic on the uucp and bugs groups. How about it? Anyone willing to read the guidelines and do this right? -randy -- Randy Orrison Chemical Computer Thinking Battery uunet!microsoft!cctb!randy randy@cctb.wa.com "Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much, better."
dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US (David H. Brierley) (11/13/90)
In article <315@sphere.UUCP> ruck@sphere.UUCP (John R Ruckstuhl Jr) writes: > via local telephone call to a friendly neighbor is preferred to a > toll call or paid subscription to a service. Some very, very, > generous individual in ?RI? once offered to call 3b1's that couldn't > get a local feed (did I really read that right?), but some of us Well, that would be me. Yes, you read correctly and the offer still stands. I will provide a unix-pc feed to anyone that asks. If you can call me that is fine but if you cant that is fine also. Note that if I call you the offer is limited to unix-pc.* only, no other groups and no mail (except for mail directly to someone on my machine). I get a full unix-pc feed here from a handle of sites around the country and my main feed gets their feed from uunet. I am a firm believer in alternate heirarchies but am willing to concede that maybe we should consider creating a main stream group to talk about the machines. What I would like to ask people to do is to send me mail letting me know their opinions about the following newsgroup proposals: Proposal 1: Create a group called comp.sys.3b1 specifically for discussions about the 3b1/7300. One of the things we could do in this group is to have a periodic posting that not only explained what the unix-pc.* groups were but gave explicit instructions on how to obtain a feed if you did not already have one. Proposal 2: Move the unix-pc heirarchy into the mainstream by creating the following groups: comp.sys.3b1.general, comp.sys.3b1.sources, comp.sys.3b1.uucp, and comp.sys.3b1.bugs. Existing unix-pc.* sites would then alias the old groups to the new names. Proposal 3: No change. If enough people respond that they want some form of mainstream group then I will submit a formal call for discussion to news.announce.newgroups and we can hash it out in detail. If the overwhelming majority votes for no change then I will consider the matter closed. -- David H. Brierley Home: dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US Work: dhb@quahog.ssd.ray.com Be excellent to each other.
floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) (11/13/90)
In article <35841@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >| The above, coupled with John's other anecdotes, presents a VERY compelling >| case to initiate inquiry into forming a comp.sys.unix-pc.* hierarchy. I >| sincerely wish I could devote the time myself, but I've taken on so many >| other activities that I have no additional "free" time. I would definitely >| vote "YES" if someone sends out a formal request to form the newsgroup. > There is one more reason for doing this that I've not seen mentioned yet. We have a old discontinued computer here, and over the next few years it is going to fade away completely. Sad but true. If it is sometimes hard to get a mainline connection to these groups now, how hard is it going to be in 3-4 years? And it is going to get more difficult to make it part of comp.sys too as time goes on. It may be a case of do it now or it will never be possible. And five years from now those who still have a desire/need for this group will be able to get it almost anywhere. If it remains an alt group it'll gradually become very difficult (read that as expensive) for those on the fringe to get access. Floyd -- Floyd L. Davidson floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu floydd@chinet.chi.il.us Salcha, AK 99714 connected by paycheck to Alascom, Inc. When *I* speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry.
sparkie@khan.cs.wisc.edu (Mark Horn) (11/15/90)
In article <35841@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: [ ... ] >The above, coupled with John's other anecdotes, presents a VERY compelling >case to initiate inquiry into forming a comp.sys.unix-pc.* hierarchy. I ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [ ... ] This is probably pre-mature, since we haven't even had a call for discussion, yet, BUT! before that happens, whoever does organize the call for discussion, should consider what we call the hierarchy. I currently have access to the unix-pc.* groups and it's very nice. It's also very ANNOYING when some bozo who doesn't have a hint as to what an AT&T Unix PC is posts some dumb question about running Xenix on his '386 box. I would suggest that we call the hierarchy comp.sys.3b1.* to avoid the confusion. I just want to remind whomever might organize this venture, to have that be addressed in the call for discussion, and subsequent call for votes. $.02 - sparkie P.S. Please Please Please do not reply to the account from which this was posted. Instead, reply to one of the following: harier!sparkie@cs.wisc.edu sparkie@picard.cs.wisc.edu tnx. -- ___ ___ ___ ___ _ _ _ ___ / __\| . \/ . \| . \| |/ /|_|| _ | \___\| __/| || _ /| < | || _[ sparkie@uhura.cs.wisc.edu \___/|_| |_|_||_|\\|_|\_\|_||___|
jtk@dhump.lakesys.COM (Joe Klein) (11/15/90)
I like the idea of comp.sys.3b1.general & comp.sys.3b1.sources. Should we spend more bandwidth on this, or should we set up a vote. I wish to call the vote! -- Friends: people who borrow my books and set wet glasses on them. Joseph T. Klein (414) 372-4454 jtk@rwmke.lakesys.com RiverWest Milwaukee Public UNIX ** 808 E. Wright St., Milwaukee, WI 53212
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (11/15/90)
sparkie@khan.cs.wisc.edu (Mark Horn) in <1990Nov15.053246.10492@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> writes re: my "en passant" comment concerning forming a comp.sys.unix-pc.* hierarchy: It's also very ANNOYING when some [one] who doesn't have a hint as to what an AT&T Unix PC is posts some dumb question about running Xenix on his '386 box. I would suggest that we call the hierarchy comp.sys.3b1.* to avoid the confusion. I just want to remind whomever might organize this venture, to have that be addressed in the call for discussion, and subsequent call for votes. My original comment was intended solely to identify the "nature" of the group, not its name. Either *.3b1.* or *.7300.* or even *.pc7300.* would be reasonable alternatives. Beginning with a digit means the group also appears at the head of the list! Personally, I wish there was nomenclature consistency regarding the UNIXPC. The term "UNIXPC" is a blanket for both the 7300 and the 3B1. Consider that when one browses an archive site, the strings "3b1", "3B1", "7300", "unixpc", "unix-pc", "UnixPC", "Unix-PC", "UnixPc", "Unix-Pc", "UNIXPC" and "UNIX-PC" need be sought as possible repositories of goodies for "our" system (yep, I've seen all these combinations). Even at osu-cis the UNIXPC archives are cataloged under "pub/att7300/". And the confusion re: "UNIXPC" and "PC UNIX" is real. Our user group has insertions in COMPUTER SHOPPER, Microtimes, Computer Currents, San Jose Mercury News, and elsewhere, and about half the calls I receive I refer to Dan Kionka's "PC UNIX" group which also meets at the same address (AT&T Building) but caters primarily to people with PC or PC-clones running Xenix, Minix, and other UNIX-like kernels. Dan and I joke about this, and it's not a real problem as many people eventually attend both meetings and also the SVnet UNIX group (which ALSO meets at the AT&T building) simply due to the varied topics at each different groups' meetings. Simply because it's faster to type, I'd prefer "3b1" as the hierarchy root. Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]
david@dbk.uucp (David Kozinn) (11/16/90)
In article <35955@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > >Either *.3b1.* or *.7300.* or even *.pc7300.* would be reasonable alternatives. >Beginning with a digit means the group also appears at the head of the list! From reading these postings, it seems to me that most of us are in agreement that using 3b1 instead of unix-pc is A Good Thing. Has there been any great outcry of disagreement? I haven't seen any. Do we need to keep beating this part of the discussion endlessly? -- David Kozinn UUCP: uunet!vmp!dbk!david Domain: david@dbk.vmp.com GEnie: D.KOZINN
dave@das13.snide.com (Dave Snyder) (11/17/90)
In article <20@dhump.lakesys.COM>, jtk@dhump.lakesys.COM (Joe Klein) writes: > I like the idea of comp.sys.3b1.general & comp.sys.3b1.sources. > Should we spend more bandwidth on this, or should we set up a vote. > I wish to call the vote! > I think it's time we take this further. What the next step is I'm not sure; do we call for a vote, a discussion, what? Actually, haven't we been doing the discussion part for the past two weeks? Someone with experience in doing this type of thing speak up and enlighten us! BTW, my $.02 goes with the above idea 100%. DAS -- David Snyder @ Snide Inc. - Folcroft, PA UUCP: ..!uunet!trac2000!das13!dave INTERNET: dave@das13.snide.com
kls@ditka.UUCP (Karl Swartz) (11/18/90)
In article <1990Nov16.141504.5463@dbk.uucp> david@dbk.uucp (David Kozinn) writes: >In article <35955@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >>Either *.3b1.* or *.7300.* or even *.pc7300.* would be reasonable alternatives. >>Beginning with a digit means the group also appears at the head of the list! Beginning with a digit raised a flag at first pause, but I remembered that this is only a problem for names of news hierarchies -- changing unix-pc to 3b1 (e.g. 3b1.general) wouldn't work. But comp.sys.3b1 is fine. There must be at least one non-digit in each piece of the name though, meaning comp.sys.7300 is not acceptable. >From reading these postings, it seems to me that most of us are in >agreement that using 3b1 instead of unix-pc is A Good Thing. I certainly agree with that. And I suspect 3b1 is better than 7300 or pc7300 -- some people may confuse the latter with 6300 and again think Intel garbage, while most 3b2 (and other 3b*) people know enough to know that a 3b1 is a different critter. *IF* there is a change, my vote goes for the *.3b1.* naming scheme. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com 1-408/223-1308 |UUCP {uunet,decwrl}!daver!ditka!kls "I never let my schooling get in | the way of my education."(Twain) |Snail 1738 Deer Creek Ct., San Jose CA 95148
john@sco.COM (John R. MacMillan) (11/21/90)
|From reading these postings, it seems to me that most of us are in |agreement that using 3b1 instead of unix-pc is A Good Thing. Has there been |any great outcry of disagreement? I haven't seen any. Do we need to keep |beating this part of the discussion endlessly? I agree. Let's beat a new part. First, I suggest we at least try to agree amongst ourselves before going to a real CFD and vote, so that we present a (relatively) united front. I doubt we could win a vote if the unix-pc community is divided. Second, I haven't yet seen a list of the pros and cons of moving unix-pc into comp. I wasn't around at the beginning, so I don't know why it hasn't always been there, but there must have been reasons for creating the first alternate hierarchy. Unless I get some sense that those reasons don't hold anymore, I'm inclined to go with the ``if it works, don't fix it'' school. If we do move to comp, I would suggest the groups: comp.sources.3b1 comp.sys.3b1 or comp.sys.3b1.general The sources group would then fit with *all* the other sources groups under comp. I think it would be hard to win support for comp.sys.3b1.sources because none of the other machine-centric groups do it that way (take a look at the amiga groups, for instance). As for the general group, blah.general would allow for easier expansion under blah, but since we've never seen such expansion under unix-pc, this is of questionable value. One last thing: whether we move under comp or not, what do people think of making the sources group ``loosely moderated''? The moderator would post any 3b1 source or patches, and just screen out non-source postings. Then we could use some sort of volume/issue scheme like various other source groups, so you'd know when you missed stuff, and to make it easier to archive, and easier to refer to stuff (``That was in volume 2'' versus ``That was a while ago''). -- John R. MacMillan | I'm in love with a McDonald's girl SCO Canada, Inc. | She's an angel in a polyester uniform. john@sco.COM | -- barenaked ladies
donlash@uncle.uucp (Donald Lashomb) (11/28/90)
In article <1990Nov26.054429.1994@uncle.uucp> jbm@uncle.UUCP (John B. Milton) writes: [...] >I don't think we would warrent a comp.sources.3b1. I would suggest posting >sources right in comp.sys.3b1, but only by a designated poster (moderator), [...] I don't like the idea of limiting the posting of sources to only one person. I understand that source postings are great bandwidth eaters at times. However, there doesn't seem to be an over-abundance of bandwidth-eating in unix-pc.sources now, I doubt that there would be much in a new group either. Let anybody who has source to share do so without hassles. +$.02 Don donlash@uncle.UUCP
rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov28.001913.17990@uncle.uucp>, donlash@uncle.uucp (Donald Lashomb) writes: >In article <1990Nov26.054429.1994@uncle.uucp> jbm@uncle.UUCP (John B. Milton) writes: >[...] >>I don't think we would warrent a comp.sources.3b1. I would suggest posting >>sources right in comp.sys.3b1, but only by a designated poster (moderator), >[...] > >I don't like the idea of limiting the posting of sources to only one person. >I understand that source postings are great bandwidth eaters at times. >However, there doesn't seem to be an over-abundance of bandwidth-eating >in unix-pc.sources now, I doubt that there would be much in a new group >either. Let anybody who has source to share do so without hassles. The copy of the guidelines I have (although rather outdated - 1987) says that sources must go under comp.sources.xxxx and MUST be moderated. I think it would be safe to assume (yes I know, "never assume.....") that the net.guardians will swamp us with "no" votes if we don't follow this "commandment." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- About MS-DOS: "... an OS originally designed for a microprocessor that modern kitchen appliances would sneer at...." - Dave Trowbridge, _Computer Technology Review_, Aug 90 iwblsys\ rlw@ttardis uunet!rel.mi.org!cfctech!ttardis!rlw sharkey.cc.umich.edu/ rel.mi.org is currently sick - back in 2 weeks.
woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) (12/03/90)
In article <1990Nov28.001913.17990@uncle.uucp> donlash@uncle.UUCP (Donald Lashomb) writes: > I don't like the idea of limiting the posting of sources to only one person. > I understand that source postings are great bandwidth eaters at times. > However, there doesn't seem to be an over-abundance of bandwidth-eating > in unix-pc.sources now, I doubt that there would be much in a new group > either. Let anybody who has source to share do so without hassles. Unfortunately, free posting access can lead to trouble too. I've seen a lot of software posted to sub-net (alt-net?) groups like unix-pc, which is entirely pointless. I.e. an entire package will be posted by someone who has proudly modified the makefile only so that it will compile on the particular machine in question. While this may sometimes be of an advantage to those sites receiving *only* the sub-net, and not the group(s) where the original package was first posted, I think the must be a better way! Not to mention the fact that if minor changes (eg. mods to a makefile) are sent back to the original author, a proper official patch will likely be issued, but if a customised version of a package is released by a third party, it is likely to be orphaned. -- Greg A. Woods woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP ECI and UniForum Canada +1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] VE3TCP Toronto, Ontario CANADA "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible"-ORWELL