kim@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) (08/28/88)
In article <2312.AA2312@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) writes: > My desire is not so much to minimize cost (since I do receive all 5 of > the Amiga groups) as much as is it is to see the binaries and sources > return to there proper groups. Its seems that the posting of binaries > and sources in the message groups have started to become the rule rather > than the exception. It would probably help matters a bit if the sources/binaries groups were just a tad more active. And consistant. Don't you think? Once again, it's been well over two weeks since *anything* has been posted to either group. A quick check of the binary groups for PClones, Mac's, and ST's shows 41, 6, and 20 postings respectively over the same period. And, though I don't have any numbers, not alot has been posted in the past six months ... especially when compared to the other groups. Certainly very little of the things I've sent in has (read: dme v1.30, zoo v2.00, 2 or 3 versions of VirusX, arp v1.1, arp v1.1a update, and a number of other utilities and "significant" contributions to the Amiga PD). Time was, when the best PD stuff was posted here on the net FIRST, and most of it with *sources*. Unfortunately, that no longer seems to be the case. That is why I have, on occasion, posted some "significant contributions" directly to comp.sys.amiga, most noteably the ARP stuff, and "rez". And it's why I will continue to do so, given the same situation (after having first posted appropriate notification of my intentions, and after having given the moderators a reasonable amount of time to do things "the right way"). > As for the UnDelete program, I will admit that in the past ive been known > to post some long files. Thanx for pointing this out to me and I will try > to refrain from doing this in the future. I will continue to post however > they will be in the proper newsgroup(s). I hope you will reconsider, and continue to post "significant" items in the news.group that will benefit the majority of the readership. Currently, it is NOT the sources/binaries groups. When (and if) they ever become active, reliable, and consistant again, then they are, of course, "the right places". Such is not the case *today*. Now ... the above is not meant to be a flaming attack at the moderators. First, that's a voluntary job, and it takes alot of time to do it. Therein is the biggest problem, I think. I do believe that they could reduce their "workload" by simply insuring that all the files for a given distribution were indeed included, and that any binary files were not corrupt. And then *post* the stuff! In a timely fashion. It would also help to relax this hypothetical 100K/day limit (which I know for a fact is not something that's imposed by Purdue's administration, and which certainly isn't imposed on similar groups for other machines). Finally, a quick word WRT the alt.sources.amiga group. I have no problem with the group per se, but this too is a "band-aid" to try and find a solution to the ongoing problems with the "real" src/bin groups. It would be a good solution, except that it has questionable propagation, and hence serves only a limited number of the net's readership (those fortunate enough to have "enlightened" administration on-site, and in their upstream news feeds). /kim -- UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,uunet,oliveb,ames}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 BIX: kdevaughn GEnie: K.DEVAUGHN CIS: 76535,25
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (08/29/88)
:In article <2312.AA2312@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) writes:
: My desire is not so much to minimize cost (since I do receive all 5 of
: the Amiga groups) as much as is it is to see the binaries and sources
: return to there proper groups. Its seems that the posting of binaries
: and sources in the message groups have started to become the rule rather
: than the exception.
:It would probably help matters a bit if the sources/binaries groups were
:just a tad more active. And consistant. Don't you think?
:
How about just unmoderating binaries and sources? The concept of
moderation is nice and all, but just isn't working for us. Frankly, I
think WE as a group are responsible enough to do it. Right now I don't
really give a @#$ if the stuff is archived, just as long as it gets posted
in a reasonable amount of time.
One thing that *cannot* be done is to post major source/binary
distributions over comp.sys.amiga .... many sites would not be able to
afford it.
-Mattkoster@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David Ashley) (08/29/88)
In article <8808290546.AA27315@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > How about just unmoderating binaries and sources? > -Matt I agree. I'm also sick of hearing about how much time and trouble it is to be a moderator. I say, if you can't stand the heat, give the job to someone else. The current situation is rediculous. These guys are slow as molasses, and I for one do not really care if the program is tested or not. Moreover, to worry about commercial/pirated programs being placed on the net is silly, as a person can do that now, just posting in comp.sys.amiga or one of the other unmoderated groups.
sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) (08/30/88)
In Message <acrUM06zfa1010dw9aQ@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, kim@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) writes: >In article <2312.AA2312@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) writes: >> My desire is not so much to minimize cost (since I do receive all 5 of >> the Amiga groups) as much as is it is to see the binaries and sources >> return to there proper groups. Its seems that the posting of binaries >> and sources in the message groups have started to become the rule rather >> than the exception. > >It would probably help matters a bit if the sources/binaries groups were >just a tad more active. And consistant. Don't you think? > >And, though I don't have any numbers, not alot has been posted in the past >six months ... especially when compared to the other groups. Certainly > I have to agree that there seems to be a problem. But what is the answer? >Now ... the above is not meant to be a flaming attack at the moderators. >First, that's a voluntary job, and it takes alot of time to do it. Therein >is the biggest problem, I think. I do believe that they could reduce their >"workload" by simply insuring that all the files for a given distribution >were indeed included, and that any binary files were not corrupt. And then >*post* the stuff! In a timely fashion. > It seems like this discussion took place just a few months ago. Thats what caused Peter to start alt.sources.amiga -=- But maybe its time to start this discussion again. And if it involves lifting the fog, then maybe its time we do it now rather than rehashing this subject every few months. >UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com -- Dan "Sneakers" Schein {alegra|amiga|rutgers|uunet}!cbmvax!heimat!sneakers Sneakers Computing 2455 McKinley Ave West Lawn PA 19609 Call: BERKS AMIGA BBS 24 Hrs - 3/12/2400 Baud Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed are 40 Meg -=- 215/678-7691 those of Sneakers Computing Of course heimat is an Amiga, doesn't everyone run UUCP & UseNet on an Amiga?