gsk@khaki (12/19/87)
i expect that Harry Skelton will render valuable service
as moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc; however his proposed
editorial policies seem excessively paranoid and cumbersome to me.
the "advertise it for a month" policy puts a hard lower bound
of a month on all submissions. add to that the required phone calls,
*US mail* exchange, testing, book-keeping, etc., and i expect that
average turn-around time will be more like 2 months.
i'm skeptical that all this heavy-handed security will be effective,
anyway, since pirates can easily post pirated stuff to other
newsgroups, and anybody who wanted to could defeat Harry's
measures with little trouble.
and what do people do if they don't want to wait more than a month
and go through rounds of telephone and USmail contacts?
for example, we often see exchanges like:
"anybody have a program that does XXX?"
"yes, i'll post it to newsgroup YYY."
it seems that there will have to be an alternate, unmoderated place
for binaries - maybe comp.sys.ibm.pc (but others might find that
objectionable). this would not be necessary if comp.binaries.ibm.pc
offered quick turn-around.
please don't construe this as a flame. i will undoubtedly appreciate
Harry's contribution. i value the packaging, testing, and archiving
that a moderator can provide. i also am aware of the magnitude
of the job and wish to commend Harry for volunteering.
i only request that moderating be practiced in moderation.
George S. Kong, Silicon Graphics, Inc., (415)962-3281
gsk@sgi.com
...{decwrl,allegra,sun,adobe,ucbvax,pyramid,ames}!sgi!gskmvolo@ecsvax.UUCP (Michael R. Volow) (12/19/87)
In article <9132@sgi.SGI.COM>, gsk@khaki writes: > > i expect that Harry Skelton will render valuable service > as moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc; however his proposed > editorial policies seem excessively paranoid and cumbersome to me. Be patient and see how it goes with Harry Skelton's generous offer. There are already too many _empty_, _unread_ newsgroups on this net, to support two (moderated and unmoderated) comp.binaries.ibm.pc. Because many folks get their PD/Shareware software from none-net BBSs, and because there are a huge number of these BBSs all containing over- lapping inventories of software, let's hope there is enough unique software to keep Mr. Skelton busy on comp.binaries.ibm.pc. I am sure he will develop this group in his own way. --Mike Volow, Psychiatry, Durham Veterans Administration Medical Center Durham, NC, 27712 919 383 3568 mvolo@ecsvax.UUCP
las@apr.UUCP (Larry Shurr) (12/22/87)
In article <9132@sgi.SGI.COM> gsk@khaki writes: >i expect that Harry Skelton will render valuable service >as moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc; however his proposed >editorial policies seem excessively paranoid and cumbersome to me. > ...and i expect that >average turn-around time will be more like 2 months. >i'm skeptical that all this heavy-handed security will be effective, >anyway, since pirates can easily post pirated stuff to other >newsgroups, and anybody who wanted to could defeat Harry's >measures with little trouble. I'm not pleased about the security measures Harry is imposing on postings, but I understand them, indeed, I'm afraid I believe that they are a harbinger of things to come. The reason I say that relates to the reason for them. To whit: the measures are not for *our* protection as users of comp.binaries.ibm.pc so much as they are protection for: 1) Harry Skelton 2) Lachman Associates (I believe that's the correct corporate name) The incidence of trojan horses and pirates being what they are, the corporate entities which carry these networks may wish to avoid the litigation which may come at any moment: ========================================================================= Possible scenario 1: Plaintiff's attorney: Harry Skelton and Lachman Associates have infringed my client's copyrights by distributing unauthorized copies of {his | her | their} software, <some wizzo name here>, using the electronic computer network popularly known as 'usenet' and have illegally etc. etc. etc... Lachman attorney: Mr. Skelton, at the behest of Lachman Associates, instituted procedures described in documents provided to the court for selecting, screening, and obtaining permission to distribute software which is protected by copyright or verifying that a given software package has been released to the public domain etc. etc. etc... Documents collected by Mr. Skelton and provided to the court show that a person using the name, <some possibly bogus name, maybe even the plaintiff's name>, declared that said person was the legal copyright owner with full power to assign and grant various permis- sions etc. etc. etc... Etc. etc. etc... ad infinitum at $120/hour... Thus, the plaintiff, Mr. Skelton, and Lachman Associates are all the victims of a fraud perpetrated by etc. etc. etc... Having made a good faith effort to establish etc. etc. etc..., Mr. Skelton and Lachman Associates are free of any guilt, fraud, or culpible negligence related to the illegal distribution of <whomever's> software package known as <wizzo name> etc. etc. etc... We therefore petition the court to dismiss the { charges | suit } etc. etc. etc... <you get the general idea> This is a much better legal position to be in then: Possible scenario 2: Plaintiff's attorney: Harry Skelton and Lachman Associates have... Lachman attorney: Gee Your Honor! Harry didn't know that the software was pirated. The guy who gave it to him said it was ok. We don't know who it was. When we tried to send mail to { him | her | them } recently, it bounced and we don't have a clue where to look now because { he | she | they } are pretty slick and can hack that net like anything. You just wouldn't believe it! Besides, Harry did it himself, the boss doesn't have time to check up on every little thing that's going on. It just didn't seem very important. <o.k., it's silly, but again, you get the idea> ========================================================================= So I'm not Dosteoevsky, exxxxxccccccuuuuuuusssssseeeee me! ========================================================================= Seriously folks. This sort of thing could become common. On the other hand, maybe it won't. Instead companies, schools, people, whatever will just start dropping off of the net or severely restricting access. I hope that Harry's measures are unnecessarily restrictive, but I'm not too surprised that something like this has come to pass (can't say I had the forsight to anticipate this sort of thing though). regards, Larry -- "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." - Oscar Wilde, James Whistler or George Bernard Shaw depending on who you ask Name: Larry A. Shurr (cbosgd!osu-cis!apr!las or try {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbcp1!las) Disclaimer: The above is not necessarily the opinion of APR or any APR client.
akk2@ur-tut.UUCP (Atul Kacker) (12/22/87)
In article <377@apr.UUCP> las@apr.UUCP (Larry Shurr) writes: >In article <9132@sgi.SGI.COM> gsk@khaki writes: > >>i expect that Harry Skelton will render valuable service >>as moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc; however his proposed >>editorial policies seem excessively paranoid and cumbersome to me. > > >>i'm skeptical that all this heavy-handed security will be effective, >>anyway, since pirates can easily post pirated stuff to other >>newsgroups, and anybody who wanted to could defeat Harry's >>measures with little trouble. > >I'm not pleased about the security measures Harry is imposing on >postings, but I understand them, indeed, I'm afraid I believe that >they are a harbinger of things to come. > I am pleased that there is someone who is volunteering to moderate the binaries newsgroups, but like gsk@khaki, I do not agree with the editorial policies that will be put in place. As with anything else that one obtains from electronic networks, the responsibility of the network or their representatives is limited to seeing that only PD/shareware/freeware programs get distributed. The network should not be held responsible for things like Trojan horses. The responsibility for that lies solely with the user. If I am dumb enough to run a program I obtain through the net on a machine that has a hard disk which has not been backed up, and the program turns out to be a Trojan, then **I** deserve it. I do not buy the argument that there are naive users who might destroy their hard disks in this way. If they do, it's just tough luck. They will surely be careful in the future. I know these are harsh words, but I do believe them to be true. Keep in mind, what Confucious said - "He who laughs last, had a backup". Happy Holidays! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Atul Kacker | Internet: akk2@tut.cc.rochester.edu | UUCP: {ames,cmcl2,decvax,rutgers}!rochester!ur-tut!akk2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wnp@killer.UUCP (Wolf Paul) (12/24/87)
In article <755@ur-tut.UUCP> akk2@tut.cc.rochester.edu.UUCP writes: >I am pleased that there is someone who is volunteering to moderate >the binaries newsgroups, but like gsk@khaki, I do not agree with >the editorial policies that will be put in place. As with anything >else that one obtains from electronic networks, the responsibility >of the network or their representatives is limited to seeing that >only PD/shareware/freeware programs get distributed. The network >should not be held responsible for things like Trojan horses. The >responsibility for that lies solely with the user. If I am dumb >enough to run a program I obtain through the net on a machine that >has a hard disk which has not been backed up, and the program turns Yes, but should you decide to sue the moderator, who's to know that the jury will follow this wise reasoning? We're now in a situation where a manufacturer has to list not only the uses for which his product is designed but also all the uses for which it is not designed, warning people not to put said product to said uses - else he might be held liable if someone gets hurt. With juries like these it pays to be extra careful. I don't like Harry Skelton's policies, but I support them, because we live in a society that's gone liability-crazy. Wolf Paul ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp
davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) (01/05/88)
I hope that the archives posted in the moderated binaries group will be
formed with arc rather than pkarc. I don't believe that pkarcs can be
unpacked under UNIX, whereas arcs can. The largest difference in archive
file size I've seen is about 2% (yes I'm sure 40 people have generated
test cases which are 50% smaller, etc).
--
bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
{uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me