wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) (05/12/89)
Before the rest of you self righteous people send me more mail, please
read the following. The uuencoded and arced posting of the GNUPLOT
source was requested by more than a dozen people on the net. It was
in response to a question on this board. Not everyone has Shar for
the PC so it was Arced for compression and convenience. Yes, it could
have gone to sources but it wasn't requested from there.
What difference does it "really" make anyway?
Keep your general flames to yourself!
--
Bill Wilson (Bitnet: ucc2wew@nauvm)
Northern AZ Univ
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
{Let sleeping dragons lie......}hst@mh_co2.mh.nl (Klaas Hemstra) (05/12/89)
From article <1426@naucse.UUCP>, by wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson): > Before the rest of you self righteous people send me more mail, please > read the following. The uuencoded and arced posting of the GNUPLOT > source was requested by more than a dozen people on the net. It was > in response to a question on this board. Not everyone has Shar for > the PC so it was Arced for compression and convenience. Yes, it could > have gone to sources but it wasn't requested from there. > > What difference does it "really" make anyway? > > Keep your general flames to yourself! > Sorry Bill, but I do not agree at all. First of all there might be some sites where they archive the sources and binary groups, and not the discussion groups like c.s.i.p. Secondly maybe some people do not read the c.s.i.p. group because they are not interested in discussions an or questions. And also if it was a small posting of somethig like 5 Kbyte, but this was a bit more ! You are saying: Why bother to make groups like binaries. My (self righteous) opinion, Klaas Klaas Hemstra (hst@mh.nl) | / / ,~~~ ~~/~~ uucp: ..{uunet!}hp4nl!mh.nl!hst | /--/ `-, / ___ |_/ |__| Multihouse N.V., Gouda, the Netherlands | / / ___/ / --- | \ | | "Most of us mindreaders are atheist, you know" A song for Lya: George Martin
davidsen@sungod.steinmetz (William Davidsen) (05/13/89)
In article <1426@naucse.UUCP> wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) writes: | What difference does it "really" make anyway? I assume you don't remember or understand why we have source and binary groups. There are several reasons: 1. So people who want source and binary can find things 2. So people who don't can avoid huge postings 3. So postings can be archived 4. So sites which have limited feeds don't get swamped in those huge postings. 5. So the volume can be regulated and not come all at once There are several reasons for posting source/binary to this group: 1. Nobody told you and you didn't read new.users 2. You're too dumb to understand 3. You're an arrogant jerk | | Keep your general flames to yourself! Why not post your stuff in the right group and save yourself the flames. We don't care if you want to hear it or not. | | -- | Bill Wilson (Bitnet: ucc2wew@nauvm) | Northern AZ Univ | Flagstaff, AZ 86011 | {Let sleeping dragons lie......} ________________________________________________________________ A somewhat longer and much less polite commentary was sent by mail. bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (05/13/89)
Unfortunately, there IS no "comp.source.ibm.pc" group. Comp.binaries.ibm.pc has a name which strongly encourages BINARY postings -- I seem to remember some discussion about MSDOS's unusual status as an environment in which the binaries were more useful than the sources (at that time). Much discussion (okay, flamage) has gone by about the twin facts that, (especially) for source code, straight ASCII postings are preferable to the net. For archived binaries, and the ibm.pc stuff in particular, compressed/archived postings are far more advantageous. The upshot is that source postings aimed at MSDOS machines are left in a peculiar vacuum. c.b.i.p. really is set up to be ill-suited for source-only postings, and there isn't a really good place for them to go. And yet, in these viral days, I am far more interested in source code than in binaries.
davidsen@sungod.steinmetz (William Davidsen) (05/15/89)
In article <20677@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes: | Unfortunately, there IS no "comp.source.ibm.pc" group. Comp.binaries.ibm.pc | has a name which strongly encourages BINARY postings -- I seem to remember | some discussion about MSDOS's unusual status as an environment in which | the binaries were more useful than the sources (at that time). PC source has been published in the past in comp.sources.misc, where it can be archived. This seems like a pretty good location to me... bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
jpn@genrad.uucp (John P. Nelson) (05/16/89)
>The upshot is that source postings aimed at MSDOS machines are left in a >peculiar vacuum. c.b.i.p. really is set up to be ill-suited for >source-only postings, and there isn't a really good place for them to go. The correct place for PC source code is comp.sources.misc: If you think that too few people will see it there, post an article to comp.sys.ibm.pc that points interested parties to it. If we had a higher volume of PC source code, we could create a new newsgroup for it - however, the volume is sufficiently low to suggest that the "misc" group should be used. john nelson UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!jpn smail: jpn@genrad.com
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (05/16/89)
In article <20912@genrad.UUCP> jpn@genrad.uucp (John P. Nelson) writes:
The correct place for PC source code is comp.sources.misc: If you think
that too few people will see it there, post an article to comp.sys.ibm.pc
that points interested parties to it. If we had a higher volume of
PC source code, we could create a new newsgroup for it - however, the
volume is sufficiently low to suggest that the "misc" group should be
used.
The problem with the PC is that there is no standard for source code.
On Unix, you can always assume that they have a C compiler. However,
no such assumptions are possible for the PC. Even if you write a
program in C, you have to target it to a specific compiler (at least,
for non-trivial programs. And that assumes that they are willing to
plunk for a C compiler.
And that's why PC Magazine publishes their programs in two formats --
as .ASM source and as .BAS data statements. And that's why postings
to c.b.i.p that come with source are usually distributed with
executables in a .ARC file.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
I'm a right-to-lifer -- everyone has a right to earn a living sufficient to
feed himself and his family.keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (05/16/89)
If the gnuplot posting does nothing other than to provoke creation of a sources group for us IBMmers it'll be worth it. keith (what the hell do *I* know?) ericson
jpn@genrad.uucp (John P. Nelson) (05/16/89)
>If the gnuplot posting does nothing other than to provoke creation >of a sources group for us IBMmers it'll be worth it. It's unlikely. There simply isn't enough volume to be able to justify a new group. comp.sources.misc is still sufficient for the job. Besides, "source" and "binary" groups generally require a moderator: Are YOU volunteering to become moderator? The last time the subject of a ibm-pc sources group came up, NO ONE volunteered. So no one bothered formally proposing the group in news.groups. john nelson UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!jpn smail: jpn@genrad.com