fnf@riscokid.UUCP (Fred Fish) (11/19/90)
In article <35991@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >Which brings me to a rambling comment concerning some archives sites removing >"old" Fish Disks ... DON'T. Some of the MOST valuable code examples for the >Amiga can be found on early Fish Disks (i.e. #5). The program I cited above >is on Fish Disk #36, and just yesterday I referred someone to Fish Disk #79 >for the source to Chuck McManis' "INFO" clone. Just because something may >have been written 4, 5 or 6 years ago does NOT make it obsolete ... in fact, >some of the early programs were so good that no-one has been able to improve >upon them. Even most of the early Usenet Amiga discussions from mid-1985 are >still valuable today (which is why I've kept those archives all these years). Good comment Thad. Examination of some of the early disks, and then some of the latest, will show that the "flavor" of the library has changed substantially over the years. A depressingly common portion of the description of each item on some of the newer disks is "binary only". People seem more reluctant these days to release source. I have been tempted to start a new policy of only including material for which source is either distributed with the material, or available from the author, and that such source has to be provided (even if not distributed) with any submissions. This would probably noticably cut down on the number of future disks, but I think the overall quality would be higher. Comments pro and con are invited... On an unrelated note, I am starting to think about giving the "look and feel" of my library disks a facelift. Specifically, updated icons that look great under 2.0 and passable under 1.3, and other 2.0 vs 1.3 issues. If anyone with some artistic ability would like to see one of their icons adopted for use in the library, please feel free to send me a sample of your work. -Fred
dlarson@blake.u.washington.edu (Dale Larson) (11/20/90)
In article <14089@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com> you Fred Fish writes: >In article <35991@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >>Which brings me to a rambling comment concerning some archives sites removing >>"old" Fish Disks ... DON'T. Some of the MOST valuable code examples for the >>Amiga can be found on early Fish Disks (i.e. #5). The program I cited above >>is on Fish Disk #36, and just yesterday I referred someone to Fish Disk #79 >>for the source to Chuck McManis' "INFO" clone. Just because something may >>have been written 4, 5 or 6 years ago does NOT make it obsolete ... in fact, but sometimes it does - it depends on what it is (some things are necessaryily dependent on a particular version of a particular compiler, or whatever) and on how it was written (some people write code in such a way as to make it dependent on things it shouldn't depend on). Stuff becomes obsolete for lots of other reasons, too (bug fixes, better ways to do it, etc.) >>some of the early programs were so good that no-one has been able to improve >>upon them. Even most of the early Usenet Amiga discussions from mid-1985 are >>still valuable today (which is why I've kept those archives all these years). > >Good comment Thad. Examination of some of the early disks, and then >some of the latest, will show that the "flavor" of the library has >changed substantially over the years. A depressingly common portion >of the description of each item on some of the newer disks is "binary only". >People seem more reluctant these days to release source. There is one big problem that the 3000 and 2.0 and 400 of Fred's Fine Disks creates. If one is interested in a program from any of those 400 disks, one has to figure out wether it is obsolete or not, and I'm sure many of us have already wasted a fair amount of time on this (I know I have!). I don't advocate getting rid of the old disks, but a lot of stuff on a lot of disks is obsolete because newer versions are available, because vastly superior other programs are available, because compilers (and utilities) have gone through a lot of changes, because the operating system has expanded to fill previously unmet needs, etc. For at least the last six months, I've been really wanting either a new series of disks which did not contain obsolete material (below version 5 of either C compiler, not 2.0 compatible, not grossly inferior to other similar programs, not superceded by a more recent release, etc.). I figure that such an update would take up a _lot_ fewer than 400 disks and be significantly more useful because it would be more accessable (one would spend less time determining what was available for current needs). I realize that such a new series may not be possible (it may not be possible to decide what really is or isn't useful anymore even if you assume that noone needed anything for less than current revisions of OS and compilers and etc.) or it may not be practical because it'd take entirely too much work. An alternative (to a new series of disks) would be to annotate the current series. Volunteers could go through say, 25 disks each and generate additional content listings indicating whether the programs are A3000/2.0 compatible, which compiler (and rev. number) the source was written for, whether there appear to be other programs on any of the FF disks which are suited to solving the same problems, whether the source uses ANSI features (i.e. prototyping), etc. Even this alternative might not be practical or even possible. Mr. Fish seems to be in a much better possition to judge the feasability of of either of these improvements. If he thinks one feasable and desireable and he is willing to coordinate it, I am willing to volunteer _some_ time and effort to help make it happen. I am _very_ gratefull for all of the time and effort and etc. that Fred has already put into his disks!!! -- -Dale Larson (dlarson@blake.u.washington.edu)
david@starsoft.UUCP (Dave Lowrey) (11/20/90)
In article <14089@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com>, Fred Fish writes: > > Good comment Thad. Examination of some of the early disks, and then > some of the latest, will show that the "flavor" of the library has > changed substantially over the years. A depressingly common portion > of the description of each item on some of the newer disks is "binary only". > People seem more reluctant these days to release source. > > I have been tempted to start a new policy of only including material for > which source is either distributed with the material, or available from the > author, and that such source has to be provided (even if not distributed) > with any submissions. This would probably noticably cut down on the number > of future disks, but I think the overall quality would be higher. > Comments pro and con are invited... > The "Programmer" in me agrees with you Fred, however the "realist" in me has to disagree. I think we would loose many good programs. Many programmers won't distribute code to their programs because they want to keep control of them (SKSh). Some are "freely distributable" versions or demos of comercial programs (DICE, crossDos demo). Perhaps you could give priority to "source included" (or avaliable when the "shareware" fee is paid) submissions, over the binary only submissions. However, when there is something that is "really good" that is binary only, you would include it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- These words be mine. The company doesn't care, because I am the company! :-) Dave Lowrey | david@starsoft or {uhnix1,lobster}!starsoft!david Starbound Software Group | Houston, TX | "Dare to be stupid!" -- Weird Al Yankovic
sl195@cc.usu.edu (A banana is not a toy) (11/22/90)
In article <14089@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com>, fnf@riscokid.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: > In article <35991@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >>Which brings me to a rambling comment concerning some archives sites removing >>"old" Fish Disks ... DON'T. Some of the MOST valuable code examples for the >>Amiga can be found on early Fish Disks (i.e. #5). The program I cited above >>is on Fish Disk #36, and just yesterday I referred someone to Fish Disk #79 >>for the source to Chuck McManis' "INFO" clone. Just because something may >>have been written 4, 5 or 6 years ago does NOT make it obsolete ... in fact, >>some of the early programs were so good that no-one has been able to improve >>upon them. Even most of the early Usenet Amiga discussions from mid-1985 are >>still valuable today (which is why I've kept those archives all these years). > > Good comment Thad. Examination of some of the early disks, and then > some of the latest, will show that the "flavor" of the library has > changed substantially over the years. A depressingly common portion > of the description of each item on some of the newer disks is "binary only". > People seem more reluctant these days to release source. > > I have been tempted to start a new policy of only including material for > which source is either distributed with the material, or available from the > author, and that such source has to be provided (even if not distributed) > with any submissions. This would probably noticably cut down on the number > of future disks, but I think the overall quality would be higher. > Comments pro and con are invited... > > On an unrelated note, I am starting to think about giving the "look and > feel" of my library disks a facelift. Specifically, updated icons that > look great under 2.0 and passable under 1.3, and other 2.0 vs 1.3 > issues. If anyone with some artistic ability would like to see one > of their icons adopted for use in the library, please feel free to > send me a sample of your work. > > -Fred I'm grateful for those people who do send code, because there are some things that I've not been able to get information on. (Applause to Anders Bjerin's (I hope I spelled that right) CManual. I just looked at it yesterday.) Even if the code is shoddy, the protocol for making the propper calls has to be there, and I can pick that out. (BTW, I've never plagerized another's code. Anybody who does that aught to be shot. I just need an example or two on how to make certain system calls.) However, there are a few (a few) *very* useful programs that are bin-onlys. I'm reluctant to see them go, but if somebody's going to truely release something into the public domain, they aught to let out the source, too. ShareWare may be a different story, but ofttimes the author will provide the source if you desire after you register your copy. I know that I've not said much yea or nay, but that's my 25c worth. jk -- All comments are my own, and many must be taken with a :-) =============================++++++++++++++++++++============================= | Demetrios Triandafilakos | James Knowles | "Remember, always remember,| | Shire of Cote du Ciel | BITNET: SL195@USU | my son -- a banana is not | | Principality of Artemesia | INTERNET: | a toy." | | Kingdom of Atenvelt | sl195@cc.usu.edu | - The Wise Guru | =============================++++++++++++++++++++============================= Be all that you can be - see your local SCA Knight Marshal now.
rhialto@cs.kun.nl (Olaf Seibert) (11/22/90)
In article <14089@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com> fnf@riscokid.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: >I have been tempted to start a new policy of only including material for >which source is either distributed with the material, or available from the >author, and that such source has to be provided (even if not distributed) >with any submissions. This would probably noticably cut down on the number >of future disks, but I think the overall quality would be higher. >Comments pro and con are invited... I am strongly in favour of such a policy. One of the great things of programs that include source is that if they don't work, you can fix it yourself. (Assuming you know how to program, of course.) Many times there are also small details that you would like to change. And if you changed something to suit your particular need you can reasonably say: "I wrote it, so it's better.". [Note btw that I use my own modified version of English punctuation rules here. I wrote them, so they are better. ;-)] Of course this will reduce volume, but I think that quality is more important than quantity. We don't need 20 different binary-only programs to do X; we are far better off with 5 different programs which include source. Another reason to encourage including source is that if I can choose between two similar programs, only one of which includes source, I will use the one with source. I think many other people would do the same. There may sometimes be valid reasons not to release source, but in such a case the author must establish them "beyond reasonable doubt". >-Fred -- Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert rhialto@cs.kun.nl How can you be so stupid if you're identical to me? -Robert Silverberg
wasp@chumly.ka.sub.org (Walter Mildenberger) (11/24/90)
In article <14089@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com>, Fred Fish writes: |[...] |I have been tempted to start a new policy of only including material for |which source is either distributed with the material, or available from the |author, and that such source has to be provided (even if not distributed) |with any submissions. This would probably noticably cut down on the number |of future disks, but I think the overall quality would be higher. |Comments pro and con are invited... Absolutely YES! This would be a great improvement. Good binaries are ... ,well, good, but why the hell do we have to develop the wheel one more time ? Well, I don't think you have to include *only* these materials, but _do_ reduce the binaries ! (btw.: In times with ABI,Elf,etc. I am scared of an overall-reduction of sources :-( Isn't this the wrong way ? ) Regards --- Walter Mildenberger, Morgenstr. 55, W-7500 Karlsruhe 1, FRG SubNet: wasp@chumly.ka.sub.org ****** Voice: +49 721 385090 BitNet: 2 b announced soon * Discl.: none, I speak 4 myself
joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph P. Hillenburg) (11/24/90)
My opinion exactly. Accept programs that come with source, except:
1) Really REALLY good (and high-demand) programs that come with no
source. SID 1.06 is an example of this.
2) Shareware where source is available from the author, possibly for a
fee. LHArc is an example of this.
3) Animations. The only type of animations that would not normally come
with source are euro-demos and Director scripts. [Although some Director
users include it anyway]
Joseph Hillenburg
Secretary, Bloomington Amiga Users Group
joseph@valnet.UUCP ...!iuvax!valnet!joseph
"Only Apple could slow down a 68030 chip." -Computer ShopperBAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz (11/24/90)
In article <1990Nov21.103640.42994@cc.usu.edu>, sl195@cc.usu.edu (A banana is not a toy) writes: > > Even if the code is shoddy, the protocol for making the propper calls > has to be there, and I can pick that out. (BTW, I've never plagerized > another's code. Anybody who does that aught to be shot. I just need an > example or two on how to make certain system calls.) I, on the contrary am delighted to say I am always willing to use well written, bug free code, as it would be a complete waste of time writing things that have been written before and released to public domain. I use C Gibbs file requester (checking up on a better one) and RJ's Colour Requester. I consider recoding the same functionality a waste if I could be adding postscript support, new line fitting methods or other neat features instead. Query to the net: Where the hell has all this "programming mechismo" come from? Regards Alan
hclausen@adspdk.UUCP (Henrik Clausen) (11/25/90)
In article <18416a2a.ARN239b@chumly.ka.sub.org>, Walter Mildenberger writes: > In article <14089@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com>, Fred Fish writes: > > |[...] > |I have been tempted to start a new policy of only including material for > |which source is either distributed with the material, or available from the > |author, and that such source has to be provided (even if not distributed) > |with any submissions. This would probably noticably cut down on the number > |of future disks, but I think the overall quality would be higher. > |Comments pro and con are invited... > > Absolutely YES! This would be a great improvement. > Good binaries are ... ,well, good, but why the hell do we have to develop > the wheel one more time ? No, this would hold back binaries that are very useful. Coming first to my mind is lharc, where the author keeps the source in order to avoid a confusion load of minor revisions. Lots of other examples of this reasonable policy can be found. > Well, I don't think you have to include *only* these materials, but _do_ > reduce the binaries ! But I'm agreed on that point! > (btw.: In times with ABI,Elf,etc. I am scared of an overall-reduction > of sources :-( Isn't this the wrong way ? ) The programmer/owner percentage of microcomputers has ever been falling from the day VisiCalc appeared, and will continue to do so. The AmigaLibDisks have a much wider audience than programmers and .tech people. -Henrik | Henrik Clausen, Graffiti Data | | ...{pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmehq!adspdk!hclausen | \__"Do not accept the heart that is the slave to reason" - Qawwali trad__/
DNA90JPE@castor.ldc.lu.se (11/26/90)
Dale Larson writes: >For at least the last six months, I've been really wanting either a new >series of disks which did not contain obsolete material (below version 5 of >either C compiler, not 2.0 compatible, not grossly inferior to other >similar programs, not superceded by a more recent release, etc.). I figure >that such an update would take up a _lot_ fewer than 400 disks and be >significantly more useful because it would be more accessable (one would >spend less time determining what was available for current needs). > >I realize that such a new series may not be possible (it may not be possible >to decide what really is or isn't useful anymore even if you assume >that noone needed anything for less than current revisions of OS and compilers >and etc.) or it may not be practical because it'd take entirely too much work. > >An alternative (to a new series of disks) would be to annotate the current >series. Volunteers could go through say, 25 disks each and generate additional >content listings indicating whether the programs are A3000/2.0 compatible, >which compiler (and rev. number) the source was written for, whether there >appear to be other programs on any of the FF disks which are suited to >solving the same problems, whether the source uses ANSI features (i.e. >prototyping), etc. Even this alternative might not be practical or even >possible. Why not split the lib into seweral (games, hacks, docs, etc.) this way it would be easy to update it. >Mr. Fish seems to be in a much better possition to judge the feasability of >of either of these improvements. If he thinks one feasable and desireable >and he is willing to coordinate it, I am willing to volunteer _some_ time >and effort to help make it happen. Agree on both points. >I am _very_ gratefull for all of the time and effort and etc. that Fred >has already put into his disks!!! Me to. A large THANK YOU FRED!!!!! >-- >-Dale Larson (dlarson@blake.u.washington.edu) /Jens Persson (dna90jpe@castor.ldc.lu.se)
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (11/27/90)
hclausen@adspdk.UUCP (Henrik Clausen) in <18436b7b.ARN04183@adspdk.UUCP> writes : No, this would hold back binaries that are very useful. Coming first to my mind is lharc, where the author keeps the source in order to avoid a confusion load of minor revisions. Lots of other examples of this reasonable policy can be found. Huh? I've the lharc running on several different UNIX boxes I use simply because the source IS available. And, in one test of the recent "overlarge" pbmplus on abcfd20, I de-lzh'd the file, then tar'd and compress'd it: the lharc'd file is some 965K and the compressed tar'd file is 802K. So I don't see what's so great about lharc that prompts you to single it out (above). I don't know about you, but I refuse to run PD binary-only distribution programs on my personal systems. And the fact I've NEVER had a virus infestation and that my Amigas stay up 6 months at a time before rebooting (only because I power-down then to clean the fans, etc.) should prove the wisdom of my ways. Of course, I do get every Fish Disk and I do run some of the binary-only programs on the office Amiga systems, but ... :-) Continuing -- The programmer/owner percentage of microcomputers has ever been falling from the day VisiCalc appeared, and will continue to do so. The AmigaLibDisks have a much wider audience than programmers and .tech people. I can neither believe nor refute the first sentence above; I do agree with the second sentence. You stated "percentage." Hmm, now we're getting into statistics. With statistics I can "prove" the average voltage coming out of your wall AC socket is ZERO so it's therefore "safe" to stick your fingers in the socket. Think about it: the average of all the points along a sine-wave centered about zero is zero. That's why the "real" rating is VAC RMS where "RMS" = Root Mean Squared meaning the square root of the voltages squared so everything is in the positive domain (and, hence, 120 VAC RMS). But I digress for some fun. :-) The VALUE of the "Fish Disk Collection" is in the variety of material for everyone, comprising demos, code examples, useful utilities, and even some graphic pictures; you wouldn't believe how many Mac- and IBM-nuts literally shit their pants when I show them the car, bike and plane pictures from Fish Disk #195 ... they CANNOT display pictures like that on their systems and I believe my showing them off has stimulated at least a few Amiga purchases, along with the OTHER capabilties I demonstrate on the Amiga (multitasking being the biggest hit ... doing multiple compiles, edits, file-transfers and maybe a multi-tasking game at the same time). I personally prefer more source-code contributions since I'm one of those from the "old school" where we build upon the work of others and contribute in turn. Consider as just ONE example my "Ruler" program which appears on several archive sites and BBS systems. A "kid" (Chad Netzer) saw and liked what I did and added some features ... but there were a few problems in his enhancements, so we talked over the phone and I taught him some "tricks of the trade" which he used in his enhancement; after a few more go-arounds he had a "value-added" program that we were both proud of. And I, recognizing his potential, hired him for a Summer job two years ago, and again last Summer, and he's now working for me 4 days a week (Tue, Thur, Sat, Sun) while attending UCSC ... he's now a major contributor helping me on the UNIX port of my company's major product. Just one, of many, "WIN-WIN" situations that would NEVER have happened if I was selfish and didn't distribute the source to my programs that I release to the PD. Any more questions? :-) Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (12/01/90)
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >I don't know about you, but I refuse to run PD binary-only distribution >programs on my personal systems. And the fact I've NEVER had a virus >infestation and that my Amigas stay up 6 months at a time before rebooting >(only because I power-down then to clean the fans, etc.) should prove the >wisdom of my ways. Then he says: >The VALUE of the "Fish Disk Collection" is in the variety of material for >everyone, comprising demos, code examples, useful utilities, and even some Well, Thad, not everyone is a programmer or has access to a compiler, so if Fred distributed only binaries, then not many people would get any use out of it. I personally don't have a compiler, and don't really consider myself a programmer (I know a little bit about C, but thats all) and so do many other people who own amigas. To us source code is nice but not particularly useful to us, we have to run the binaries we download or get from the fish disks. So if a program on the Fish disks doesn't have the source code we can live with that. I don't think Fred should eliminate useful programs just because there isn't any source code with it. -- John Sparks |D.I.S.K. Public Access Unix System| Multi-User Games, Email sparks@corpane.UUCP |PH: (502) 968-DISK 24Hrs/2400BPS | Usenet, Chatting, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|7 line Multi-User system. | Downloads & more. A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of----Ogden Nash
abrown@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Allen Brown) (12/02/90)
> I have been tempted to start a new policy of only including material > for which source is either distributed with the material, or available > from the author, and that such source has to be provided (even if not > -Fred I strongly agree. 1. If the source is included then its extremely unlikely that a virus or worm will also be included. 2. I want to be able learn from what other programmers have done. 3. It is sometimes possible to speed up or shrink a program by simply compiling it with a newer version of the compiler. 4. Its nice to be able to fix or modify programs. For example, years ago I installed emacs key bindings into the less program. That would have been impossible without the source. 5. There are other distribution media still available for those who refuse to supply source. Of course all of this applys only to programs and other things which *have* a source. Pictures may not have a source. -- Allen Brown abrown@cv.hp.com or abrown%hpcvca@hplabs.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!abrown or "Hey you!" Not representing my employer. "Don't dream it... Be it." Rocky Horror Picture Show