rchampe@hubcap.UUCP (Richard Champeaux) (11/12/87)
I'm new on the net, and when I tried to get into comp.binaries.amiga or
comp.sources.amiga, and there wasn't anything there, I thought my node didn't
recieve those newsgroups. However, now I realize that there was some kind
of mixup (overthrow? red tape? ...?) and files are beginning to show up in
them.
My question is: Where do I get the Shell Archiver "sh". Right now
there is nothing in comp.sources.amiga, will it show up there? (I'm assuming
that I won't need it for programs from comp.sources.amiga, or will I?)
Thank you,
Rich Champeaux
Clemson UniversityZRZO%DS0RUS1I.BITNET@cornellc.ccs.cornell.edu (Martin Hohl) (05/27/88)
Hello folks ! How can i download files from comp.binaries.amiga from a BITNET node ? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Acknowledge-To: <ZRZO@DS0RUS1I>
c072erh%utarlg.decnet@chpc.brc.utexas.edu (UTARLG::C072ERH) (05/30/88)
-> From: Martin Hohl <ZRZO%DS0RUS1I.BITNET@cornellc.ccs.cornell.edu> -> Subject: comp.binaries.amiga -> Message-ID: <2765@louie.udel.EDU> -> Date: 27 May 88 16:59:03 GMT -> Sender: mmdf@UDEL.EDU -> To: amiga-relay@UDEL.EDU -> -> Hello folks ! -> -> How can i download files from comp.binaries.amiga from a BITNET node ? -> -> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? -> Acknowledge-To: <ZRZO@DS0RUS1I> -> ^^^^^^^^ - does not exist in our database. How new is this site? Sorry to waste the bandwidth in this post, but our BITNET mailer really barfs on this address and the mailer for ARPANET bounces also. For those with only Usenet access you might as well hit "N" now. This concerns only those that can reach BITNET with interactive messages. > > For your information: > Those AMIGA lists on finhutc: > > AMIGA-A is archive list, direct your archive requests THERE > (eg: TELL LISTSERV at FINHUTC INDEX AMIGA-A) > Due to LISTSERV basic functions, real SUBSCRIBABLE > lists won't archive SPOOL CLASS A FILES as I send that > material. > AMIGA-D Digests DISTRIBUTION, Subscribe this, Archives on AMIGA-A ! > AMIGA-S Sources & Binaries DISTRIBUTION (as above) > > I-AMIGA This babling list. > > /Matti Aarnio (co-owner of *AMIGA* -lists) > The above lists are on BITNET. All but AMIGA-A are mail or file feeds that Matti sends out at intervals. The stuff is sent to Matti by the moderators of comp.sys.amiga and he distributes it to us through AMIGA-D and AMIGA-S. To subscribe to one of the lists send an interactive command to the LISTSERV at FINHUTC. ex: CMS TELL LISTSERV AT FINHUTC SUBSCRIBE listname or VMS SEND LISTSERV@FINHUTC SUBSCRIBE listname Hope this helps. ================================================================= = Ray Howard Internet: ARBK455@CHPC.BRC.UTEXAS.EDU = = #include <disclaimers.h> Bitnet: C072ERH@UTARLG = = "Shoot low, they may be crawl'n" = ================================================================= ------
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (06/17/88)
>In article <4456@killer.UUCP>, woodsb@killer.UUCP (Brent L. Woods) writes: >> Tell me, what are the people who don't have compilers or programming >> expertise supposed to do? Download all that fun source and just look at it >> like it was high art? Contrary to what I've seen implied elsewhere, most >> of the Amiga owners in the universe *aren't* programmers or developers. > > The important question is how do the costs of keeping the binaries >group compare with the benefits? If the majority of Usenet readers aren't >programmers it makes sense to devote the bandwidth to binaries for their >benefit. But my impression is that Usenet readers are generally able to >compile programs. True, there are lots of Amiga owners who aren't >programmers, but if they don't have access to Usenet anyway it's hard to >justify the bandwidth for binaries. I would definately disagree with your opinion. Very few USENET readers have compilers on their Amigas. It's just that those who do are usually the most active people on the net. And as far as devoting bandwidth to binaries for the benefit of non-programmers, you must realize that nobody is *paying* us to send our software to the moderators... comp.binaries.amiga gets whatever we give it, and we give it whatever is in our interest to write, NOT what would be beneficial solely to a certain select sub-group. But if you want to start paying me ... > People who don't have Usenet access get programs from those who do, >through user groups, dealer libraries, and the Fish libraries. The >suggestion to stop distributing binaries over the net deserves some >research into the usefulness of binaries to Usenet readers. Huh? "People who don't have Usenet access get programs from those who do"??? So if we cut off binaries where does that leave "those who do"??? As far as user groups, dealer libraries, and the fish disks (also realize here that Fred does that for his own pleasure, with no funding whatsoever), there are major disadvantages to the relatively long lag time, lack of a response path (I'd get more mail through the USENET than via USMail), and a very small distribution. The USENET acts as the backbone of distribution ... Hell, I've logged into BBS's in Nevada and seen the stuff I posted to the USENET. The USENET extends into Europe, Australia, and other places around the world. I've gotten correspondence from Finland, West Germany, the UK, etc... Talk about distribution! >--Fabbian Dufoe > 350 Ling-A-Mor Terrace South > St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 > 813-823-2350 > >UUCP: ...gatech!codas!usfvax2!jc3b21!fgd3 -Matt
fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe) (06/18/88)
In article <8806161902.AA16559@cory.Berkeley.EDU>, dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > I would definately disagree with your opinion. Very few USENET > readers have compilers on their Amigas. It's just that those who do are > usually the most active people on the net. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't have an opinion about the ratio of programmers to non-programmers in Usenet. I was merely calling attention to the fact that that ratio is an important consideration in determining whether the benefits of a binaries group outweigh the costs. What I've seen locally is Usenet readers who are programmers compiling programs and uploading them to local bulletin boards. If, in fact, most Usenet readers don't have compilers it is clearly worth keeping the binaries group. But unless we know for sure which is the case we can't make a correct decision. It is because Usenet is a unique and valuable resource that we are concerned with how much traffic it carries. It makes sense to reduce that traffic considerably by eliminating a newsgroup that serves a few people. But it doesn't make sense to eliminate a group that has a large following. So the question is, do you know for a fact that "very few USENET readers have compilers on their Amigas"? Or is that just an impression you have? --Fabbian Dufoe 350 Ling-A-Mor Terrace South St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 813-823-2350 UUCP: ...gatech!codas!usfvax2!jc3b21!fgd3
louie@trantor.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) (06/18/88)
The binaries group is worthless to me. I don't run (non-commercial) programs distributed in binary-only form. Who knows what lurks in there. All of the Amiga owners that I know have a C compiler. Maybe I have weird friends. But wait.. If you were given a choice of having comp.sources.amiga OR comp.binaries.amiga but not both, which would *you* choose? Which is more educational? Which is ultimately more useful to you? I know I'd pick the sources group, no questions. I can't learn anything from binary-only postings, and I can't fix bugs in binary-only distributions. Louis A. Mamakos WA3YMH Internet: louie@TRANTOR.UMD.EDU University of Maryland, Computer Science Center - Systems Programming
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (06/19/88)
In article <2827@umd5.umd.edu> louie@trantor.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes: >All of the Amiga owners that I know have a C compiler. Maybe I have weird >friends. I have a C compiler, but I only have 512K of mem, so it's practically worthless to me. But wait! It's Manx C. What if some bozo posts sources in Lattice C or Draco or (horror of horrors) FORTH??? >But wait.. If you were given a choice of having comp.sources.amiga OR >comp.binaries.amiga but not both, which would *you* choose? Binaries, for the reason above. >Which is more educational? Source, of course. There are two problems, though. Most sources are not very educational. And of course, there is the assumption that I want to be educated. I want the groups cause I want good free software, not because I want to be educated about Amiga programming. So there's an opposing viewpoint. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet *** The Empire select() Monster {backbone|rutgers|uunet}!ukma!sean *** ``I'm not gonna mail it, YOU mail it. I'M not gonna mail it... Hey! Let's *** send it to Rutgers! Yeah! They won't mail it. They return everything.''
hunt@tramp.Colorado.EDU (HUNT LEE CAMERON) (06/19/88)
In article <2827@umd5.umd.edu> louie@trantor.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes: >The binaries group is worthless to me. I don't run (non-commercial) programs >distributed in binary-only form. Who knows what lurks in there. Wait a second. Isn't that being a little closed-minded? I know that there are some buggy code being posted, but that is noted by the 'untested' comment in the summery line. All the 'tested' software I've used has worked. I've received the BEST binaries from this source (eg: Shell 2.07, dme, ARP, zoo, DNET, etc.). > >All of the Amiga owners that I know have a C compiler. Maybe I have weird >friends. Maybe not weird, but from my experiences people who have C compilers are far and few between. Not to mention that you really need more that 512K to compile large programs. I'm a poor student. I could barely afford an Amiga, I don't have an extra $200 laying around for a C compiler (I use Modula-2 anyway), nor do I have the intention to pirate one. My money would be used next on an A2000. > >But wait.. If you were given a choice of having comp.sources.amiga OR >comp.binaries.amiga but not both, which would *you* choose? Which is more >educational? Which is ultimately more useful to you? I know I'd pick >the sources group, no questions. I can't learn anything from binary-only >postings, and I can't fix bugs in binary-only distributions. But I don't think that we *have* to make that choice. We need both. As I said, I think that you're overstating the bug problem. Do you *really* enjoy plowing through line after line of usually sparsely-commented C code? I know that it's sometimes neat to think 'How did s/he do that?' and find it in the code, but mostly I find looking through code boring. I only do it to lift an occasional clever routine. I DO find the binaries educational, especially in finding out what's the state of the art in Amiga software. It seems to me that it's sort of like this: a publication comes out in a foreign language (C, or an equicvalent high-level language) and many people want to know what it says (run it), so you're suggesting that we only make available the original text (the source) and not make it available in these people's native language (binary). Ok, so maybe quite a few may know (have a compilier for) one language, say French, but what about German, Hebrew and Chinese? True, some information is lost in the translation but I sure wouldn't want to plow through French text every time I wanted to read a French novel (even though I know some French). Besides it doesn't make sense time-efficientcy wise. Why should thousands of Amiga users be forced to recompile source files when thy could have compiled in one central location? If it were true that the code posted in the source and binaries section were only for educational and not functional purposes, why not demand that the only source that would come over the net be blocks of example code? I don't think that most people would be satisfied with example-only code. > >Louis A. Mamakos WA3YMH Internet: louie@TRANTOR.UMD.EDU >University of Maryland, Computer Science Center - Systems Programming Lee Hunt University of Colorado internet: hunt@tramp.colorado.edu
dales@teksce.SCE.TEK.COM (Dale Snell) (06/22/88)
[ Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend. ]
Tossing in my $0.02 worth...
In article <9701@g.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
|In article <2827@umd5.umd.edu> louie@trantor.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes:
|>All of the Amiga owners that I know have a C compiler. Maybe I have weird
|>friends.
|
|I have a C compiler, but I only have 512K of mem, so it's practically
|worthless to me. But wait! It's Manx C. What if some bozo posts sources
|in Lattice C or Draco or (horror of horrors) FORTH???
|
|>But wait.. If you were given a choice of having comp.sources.amiga OR
|>comp.binaries.amiga but not both, which would *you* choose?
|
|Binaries, for the reason above.
|
|>Which is more educational?
|
|Source, of course. There are two problems, though. Most sources are not very
|educational. And of course, there is the assumption that I want to be
|educated. I want the groups cause I want good free software, not because I
|want to be educated about Amiga programming.
|
|So there's an opposing viewpoint.
|
|Sean
|--
|*** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet
|*** The Empire select() Monster {backbone|rutgers|uunet}!ukma!sean
|*** ``I'm not gonna mail it, YOU mail it. I'M not gonna mail it... Hey! Let's
|*** send it to Rutgers! Yeah! They won't mail it. They return everything.''
OK, now that that's been said (again)...
Louis does not have weird friends. He has friends who can afford to buy
C compilers for their computers. Well, all right, they may be weird, but
having compilers is not indicative of this! :-) (Is it...?) Of the five
people I know personally (myself included :-) ) who have Amigas, two have
compilers of some sort. I'm one of them. The other is a developer, so he'd
bloody well better have a compiler! Of the four of us "ordinary" types,
that's not a very high average. I got my compiler (Manx) about a month ago,
over six months after I bought my Ami. If it weren't for the binaries posted
on UseNet, I'd be a lot poorer in software right now.
I'll have to agree with Sean about the educationality (is that a word?)
of most C sources. They are not educational. They are not written to be
educational. They are written to get the job done. Of course, there are
exceptions. Some people can write C code that is quite clear, and still be
concise and to the point. I won't drop names, but several of them are here
on the net.
But there's still the problem of two not quite compatable C compilers,
and (at least) two Modula-II compilers, to say nothing of Draco, Lisp,
various assemblers, etc. I've been looking at the code for Uupc. It seems
pretty heavily "Latticified," if you will, and I don't know what a lot of the
Lattice header file macros are. [Aside: *Is* there a good Lisp for Ami??]
Then there's the cost of aquiring all this software. Dammit, I can't
*afford* to buy all those things! One C compiler will keep my Visa card busy
for quite a while. My other friends are less able to buy them than I am. Not
quite in the "starving student" catagory, but close. Given that a lot of the
people who are buying Amigas right now are students (buying A500s), I suspect
that the percentage of people who have compilers is under 50%. (Of course,
to play devil's advocate, I'll bet that most of the folks on the net *do*
have compilers -- probably more than one per.)
As for the availability of binaries if they *aren't* posted... Well, I
have no trouble with an archive server, if Pat and Co. at Purdue want to do
it that way (or Peter da Silva and his wolf do). Ftp access is a moot point
for me, since I don't have it. Given the high volume of the binaries group,
though, would this be a good idea from the server site's point of view?
After all, the way things are now, they just have to post it once, and that's
that. (Ideally, barring newsfeed hiccups.) But if everybody who normally
collects the binaries calls in, won't they be overloaded? I don't have
enough data to make even a halfway decent guess. (Pat? Somebody?)
Enough blathering; I've added enough to this debate. At least it's more
interesting than the current flame war in news.groups. Ugh.
--dds
p.s.
Sean: 512K is enough. Barely, I'll admit, but it will work. Even with
just two drives. (The Manx manual says you can do it with one. I suppose so,
but it sounds painful.) If you can afford it, I'd suggest buying a third
floppy drive. Even if you have one meg of ram, a third drive would make
things much nicer. (I have a 2000 w/one meg, and I'd *love* to have three
drives! Better yet, a hard disk!) Of course, if you're in the "starving
student" class, that doesn't help much, I suppose. :-( Sorry if that's the
case. --dds
`````````````````````````````````````''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
"The trackdisk's track seeks to seek | Dale D. Snell dales@teksce.SCE.TEK.COM
to Ami's request but Ami's request | UUCP-!: ...!tektronix!tekgen!teksce!dales
seeks to seek the trackdisk's track | CompuServe: 74756,666
just one block per track per handle." | Disclaimer: *Wha'd* he say??
-- Matt Dillonwoodsb@killer.UUCP (Brent L. Woods) (06/22/88)
In article <2827@umd5.umd.edu> louie@trantor.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes: >The binaries group is worthless to me. I don't run (non-commercial) programs >distributed in binary-only form. Who knows what lurks in there. Who knows? Well, we (the moderators) try to. We test everything we get. You betcha we have virus checkers (thy name is legion...) running full blast... >All of the Amiga owners that I know have a C compiler. Maybe I have weird >friends. Maybe you do... Just the opposite for me (as I've said before, I know). Also, C is not the only language that is currently popular on the Amiga. How about Modula2? Or Pascal? Or FORTH? Or even (shudder) DRACO? Lots of people don't have those languages (me, for instance). >But wait.. If you were given a choice of having comp.sources.amiga OR >comp.binaries.amiga but not both, which would *you* choose? Which is more >educational? Which is ultimately more useful to you? I know I'd pick >the sources group, no questions. I can't learn anything from binary-only >postings, and I can't fix bugs in binary-only distributions. No contest. Definitely comp.binaries.amiga (yeah, one of the moderators said *binaries*). I keep the sources postings around, sure, but just to have them in case I want to compile a new binary. I never look at them (keep them compressed, in fact). If I want to *learn* something, I'll buy a (another) book. I don't want to learn from the postings, I want to run the programs. -- Brent Woods, Co-Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.amiga USENET: woodsb@killer.UUCP or ihnp4!att!killer!woodsb USNAIL: 320 Brown St., #406 / W. Lafayette, IN 47906 MABELL: +1 (317) 743-8421 "What? Oh, I was just speaking hemi-demi-semi-sort_of-kinda- in_a_manner_of_speaking officially. That's all."
woodsb@killer.UUCP (Brent L. Woods) (06/23/88)
In article <1462@teksce.SCE.TEK.COM> dales@teksce.SCE.TEK.COM (Dale Snell) writes: > > As for the availability of binaries if they *aren't* posted... Well, I >have no trouble with an archive server, if Pat and Co. at Purdue want to do >it that way (or Peter da Silva and his wolf do). Ftp access is a moot point >for me, since I don't have it. Given the high volume of the binaries group, >though, would this be a good idea from the server site's point of view? >After all, the way things are now, they just have to post it once, and that's >that. (Ideally, barring newsfeed hiccups.) But if everybody who normally >collects the binaries calls in, won't they be overloaded? I don't have >enough data to make even a halfway decent guess. (Pat? Somebody?) Overloaded? Wow. Now, that's an understatement of staggering proportions. Worthy of a Briton... Well, anyway, the volume generated by an archive server for UUCP is would be high enough that I feel pretty secure in saying that Purdue would not be at all happy about supporting it (another understatement; actually, they'd have kittens at the very idea). >p.s. > Sean: 512K is enough. Barely, I'll admit, but it will work. Even with >just two drives. (The Manx manual says you can do it with one. I suppose so, >but it sounds painful.) If you can afford it, I'd suggest buying a third >floppy drive. Even if you have one meg of ram, a third drive would make >things much nicer. (I have a 2000 w/one meg, and I'd *love* to have three >drives! Better yet, a hard disk!) Of course, if you're in the "starving >student" class, that doesn't help much, I suppose. :-( Sorry if that's the >case. --dds Third drive?! *Just* two drives?! I'm sorry, but I'd kill for a second drive. I have a 1000 (yup, one of the originals) and all I have is the internal drive for it. I do have an extra 1 Mbyte on the side, but I could only afford that since I got it before the price rise on memory. I'm not quite starving, but I can't really afford big purchases either. -- Brent Woods, Co-Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.amiga USENET: woodsb@killer.UUCP or ihnp4!att!killer!woodsb USNAIL: 320 Brown St., #406 / W. Lafayette, IN 47906 MABELL: +1 (317) 743-8421
brianm@sco.COM (Brian Moffet) (06/23/88)
In article <1462@teksce.SCE.TEK.COM> dales@teksce.SCE.TEK.COM (Dale Snell) writes:
--
-- p.s.
-- Sean: 512K is enough. Barely, I'll admit, but it will work. Even with
-- just two drives. (The Manx manual says you can do it with one. I suppose so,
-- but it sounds painful.) If you can afford it, I'd suggest buying a third
-- floppy drive. Even if you have one meg of ram, a third drive would make
-- things much nicer. (I have a 2000 w/one meg, and I'd *love* to have three
-- drives! Better yet, a hard disk!) Of course, if you're in the "starving
-- student" class, that doesn't help much, I suppose. :-( Sorry if that's the
-- case. --dds
--
Actually, I bought a hard disk. I find that helps extremely,
and allows me to such strange things as using only 512K. There are
few programs that cannot be written to use less than 128K if you do
it right. So if you get the chance, don't spend 200 on a 3rd
disk drive, spend it on a hard disk.
PS. Yes, I have the lates Lattice Compiler, but I bough the Ami 1000
in Jan of '86 to program.
--
Brian Moffet brianm@sco.com {uunet,decvax!microsof}!sco!brianm
The opinions expressed are not quite clear and have no relation to my employer.
'Evil Geniuses for a Better Tommorrow!'ain@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (06/24/88)
In article <1462@teksce.SCE.TEK.COM> dales@teksce.SCE.TEK.COM (Dale Snell) writes: >... But if everybody who normally >collects the binaries calls in, won't they be overloaded? I don't have >enough data to make even a halfway decent guess. (Pat? Somebody?) I'm not actually in on the system stuff around here, but I do know a bit about the system the archives are on: j.cc... is a dualed vax 780 and it's load is 10-15 during normal working hours, (1-3 late at night)... If everybody were calling it, it's load would probably go up enough that the service would be discontinued (at least when people are using it -- it's the staff machine around here, so there is always someone using it). Of course, the whole point is moot right now since the machine does not have a uucp connection (we use ee.ecn... -- hence the mailing-binaries and posting-volume restrictions). Therefore, I am in favor of keeping the binaries groups.. but the decision certainly isn't up to me :-) -- Pat White (co-moderator comp.sources/binaries.amiga) ARPA/UUCP: j.cc.purdue.edu!ain BITNET: PATWHITE@PURCCVM PHONE: (317) 743-8421 U.S. Mail: 320 Brown St. apt. 406, West Lafayette, IN 47906 [How do you get to heaven? Go to Pluto and hang a left.]
alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo Gariepy) (06/25/88)
I think we've all been sharked here by Peter. He doesn't really have it in for binaries or non-programmers. He is only trying to demonstrate how much net bandwidth is wasted when some righteous asshole starts making baseless claims that encourage all other readers of a news group to jump in with serious (but ultimately unnecessary) objections. He has expanded his demonstration to show that the original perpetrator can waste as much or more bandwidth as the objectors by replying to each identical followup message with equally identical and meaningless rhetoric. You should have been clued in to his educational ploy by the obvious stupidity of trying to get a concensus from a completely anarchic organization (this newsgroup) on the dissolution of part of its existence (comp.binaries.amiga). If that didn't raise a flag then you should have realized that his outrageous affectation of authority and selfless idealism could only be feigned. I say: well done! I'm sure I could have gotten the binaries of several good programs into the space taken up in useless rebuttals alone! I work here now... Alonzo alonzo@microsoft (by way of utzoo if you must)
hunt@spot.colorado.EDU (HUNT LEE CAMERON) (10/14/89)
I'm sure that this has probably been run over the coals time and time again lately and I just haven't read the messages, BUT... what happend to comp.binaries.amiga? --Lee
keith@actrix.co.nz (Keith Stewart) (09/21/90)
We haven't had anything in this newsgroup for weeks. What about anyone else?
tadguy@abcfd01.larc.nasa.gov (Tad Guy) (09/23/90)
In article <1990Sep21.100811.9503@actrix.co.nz> keith@actrix.co.nz (Keith Stewart) writes:> > We haven't had anything in this newsgroup for weeks. What about anyone else? It's on hold again -- I've run out of disk space to archive the group, and I'd rather not post something without having a local archive of the posting. And before you ask, yes, the archives are on the same disk as the ftp area on abcfd20... I'm in the process of moving the other usenet archives elsewhere, but that'll take time (since I keep them on tape as well...) Patience... ...tad
sie@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Simon Raybould) (01/10/91)
In article <1405@tardis.Tymnet.COM> jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) writes: Xref: uzi-9mm.fulcrum.bt.co.uk comp.sys.amiga:6812 comp.sys.amiga.tech:2301 Path: uzi-9mm.fulcrum.bt.co.uk!axion!ukc!mcsun!uunet!olivea!tymix!tardis!jms From: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.amiga.tech Summary: Is the moderator still there? Date: 8 Jan 91 02:03:25 GMT References: <1953@raybed2.msd.ray.com> Reply-To: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) Organization: BT Tymnet, San Jose, CA Lines: 14 In article <1953@raybed2.msd.ray.com> lah@raybed2.msd.ray.com (LANCE HOLMES) writes: >It seems that there aren't as many postings as there should be. >I feel that the groups comp.binaries.amiga and comp.sources.amiga are a waste. The last thing I have archived from comp.sources.amiga was 15-Oct-90. The last thing I have from comp.binaries.amiga is 'lome-1.1' on 30-Nov-90. Time for another round of "Can comp.sources.amiga be made more timely" discussions. I hope we can get the new year started off on the right foot. -- Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | SMTP: jms@tardis.tymnet.com or jms@gemini.tymnet.com BT Tymnet Tech Services | UUCP: ...!{ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!tardis!jms PO Box 49019, MS-C51 | BIX: smithjoe | CA license plate: "POPJ P," (PDP-10) San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | humorous dislaimer: "My Amiga 3000 speaks for me." When I try to post to cmp.binaries.amiga, I find that the software doesn't actually get through the moderator for upto three months!! I assume he is just too busy. This has caused me to form lists of people who are interested in particullar software and email it to them each release. -- Simon J Raybould (sie@fulcrum.bt.co.uk) // {o.o} \X/AMIGA \-/ =========================================================================== British Telecom Fulcrum, Fordrough Lane, Birmingham, B9 5LD, ENGLAND.