Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET (Z4648252) (06/06/89)
Paul Kerchen writes:
"Why are folks posting source/executables to this newsgroup? Has
comp.sources.atari.st (or whatever it's called) died? If not, could
the generous souls who are posting source to this group please restrain
themselves and post thier source/executables there?"
Probably because for half the netters here, it is impossible to
either receive the files (I've requested from Canada several times
and have yet to receive a file) due to the routing (comp.sources.atari.st
is an "illegal syntax" for our system) or files that are received just
don't decode right.
In spite of GENEROUS unencode utilities sent to me in basic and
C by so many wonderful people here, I have yet for the received file
to process correctly. The code just does not survive the trip.
Reading net messages should confirm that I am not the only one
having these problems.
Also, most of the codes sent have typically been rather small.
The PAGE AHEAD command (~O for our system) allows for quick bypassing
of anything that I don't want to read.
Until we get some real standards (addresses and formats) on this
net, in my opinion, then the only way for all to benefit is through
the mail.
Just my opinion....
Larry Rymal <Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET>stowe@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Fox in Sox) (06/08/89)
In article <890606.08402734.007881@SFA.CP6> Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET (Z4648252) writes: >Paul Kerchen writes: > >>"Why are folks posting source/executables to this newsgroup? Has >>comp.sources.atari.st (or whatever it's called) died? If not, could >>the generous souls who are posting source to this group please restrain >>themselves and post thier source/executables there?" > > Probably because for half the netters here, it is impossible to >either receive the files (I've requested from Canada several times >and have yet to receive a file) due to the routing (comp.sources.atari.st >is an "illegal syntax" for our system) or files that are received just >don't decode right. ... > Reading net messages should confirm that I am not the only one >having these problems. > Also, most of the codes sent have typically been rather small. ... > Until we get some real standards (addresses and formats) on this >net, in my opinion, then the only way for all to benefit is through >the mail. > Just my opinion.... Regardless of the problem or the size of the sources/executables, this is still an inappropriate newsgroup for such postings. You are welcome to your opinion, however wrong it may be. stowe@silver.indiana.bacs.edu At night the Ice Weasels come.
ralph@nastassia.laas.fr (Ralph-P. Sobek) (06/12/89)
In article <21754@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> stowe@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Fox in Sox, Fox in Box, etc.) writes: | In article <890606.08402734.007881@SFA.CP6> Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET (Z4648252) writes: | > Probably because for half the netters here, it is impossible to | >either receive the files (I've requested from Canada several times | >and have yet to receive a file) due to the routing (comp.sources.atari.st | >is an "illegal syntax" for our system) or files that are received just | >don't decode right. | | Regardless of the problem or the size of the sources/executables, | this is still an inappropriate newsgroup for such postings. You are | welcome to your opinion, however wrong it may be. | | [lot's of blank lines deleted :-)] Well, the USENET news folks are forgetting something. They are not alone out there in World Net!! Some people subscribe to ARPA mailing lists, some to BITNET news/mailing servers. Both of these services are gatewayed with the corresponding newsgroups; just look in news.lists about mailing lists. For the people on these alternate networks, this is the only means to communicate source/binary code. And it is perfectly correct. Not to mention the concomitant problem of finding accessible archive servers, etc. I believe that a solution is impossible. It would require separation automatically at the gateway (normally at UCB) such that messages would be equally visible on each side of the gateway, and code would be side-lined to the appropriate moderator (easy for comp.*.atari.st) for posting. Before getting news installed locally, I spent 2 years on this alternate network. Therefore I can sympathize with those people! Let's hope that Steven Grimm archives the occasional posting of code, here. Ralph P. Sobek Disclaimer: The above ruminations are my own. ralph@laas.laas.fr Addresses are ordered by importance. ralph@laas.uucp, or ...!uunet!mcvax!laas!ralph If all else fails, try: SOBEK@FRMOP11.BITNET sobek@eclair.Berkeley.EDU
stowe@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Fox in Sox) (06/14/89)
In article <382@laas.laas.fr> ralph@laas.laas.fr writes: [talks about ARPA and BITNET...] > >Both of these services are gatewayed with the corresponding >newsgroups; just look in news.lists about mailing lists. In addition, BITNET also has a LISTSERV list for the ST. Usenet may not be alone, but ARPA and BITNET aren't the poor country cousins, either. They have their own methods to the madness. > For the >people on these alternate networks, this is the only means to >communicate source/binary code. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong-o, sleighbell lovers. There are a number of LISTSERV file sites as well as AtariNet in Houston (assuming it's still up and running since I haven't tried it in a while). Certainly you don't think that Usenet is the only network to figure out how to send files. > And it is perfectly correct. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! again. This group is for discussions. The binaries group is for binaries. The sources group is for sources. If someone wants to take the time and effort to gather those together and mail them out to subscribers OTHER than INFO-ATARI16, I'm sure there would be takers. Once of the reasons I dropped INFO-ATARI16 is because I got woefully tired of wading through lines and lines of UUE files just to find the messages. >I believe that a solution is impossible. Not at all. >It would require separation >automatically at the gateway (normally at UCB) such that messages >would be equally visible on each side of the gateway, and code would >be side-lined to the appropriate moderator (easy for comp.*.atari.st) >for posting. No, what it requires is someone who would archive up the other groups for their submission to lists similar to INFO-ATARI16. >Let's hope that Steven Grimm archives the occasional posting of code, here. I hope Steven Grimm continues to do his job properly and DOESN'T post code here. stowe@silver.indiana.bacs.edu At night the Ice Weasels come.
kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) (06/14/89)
In article <382@laas.laas.fr> ralph@laas.laas.fr writes: | In article <21754@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> stowe@silver.bacs.indiana.edu | (Fox in Sox, Fox in Box, etc.) writes: | | Regardless of the problem or the size of the sources/executables, | | this is still an inappropriate newsgroup for such postings. You are | | welcome to your opinion, however wrong it may be. | | | | [lot's of blank lines deleted :-)] | | Well, the USENET news folks are forgetting something. They are not | alone out there in World Net!! Some people subscribe to ARPA mailing | lists, some to BITNET news/mailing servers. | | Both of these services are gatewayed with the corresponding | newsgroups; just look in news.lists about mailing lists. For the | people on these alternate networks, this is the only means to | communicate source/binary code. And it is perfectly correct. Wrong again. Compare the cost of mailing a disk to the (possibly hundreds of!) dollars wasted by sending these source and/or binaries to the four winds of the net. If you have a problem with comp.binaries and comp.sources groups, posting availability of your files in a newsgroup and soliciting requests via netmail is more appropriate than posting source and binaries to a discussion group. I think it's time for some people to review news.announce.newusers, hmm? And to avoid furthering this meta-discussion and wasting even more net-bandwidth, I invite anyone who cares to respond via netmail. BTW, the oblique reference above to the waste caused by blank lines is also inappropriate; remember, each blank line only takes up one byte. I'd sooner see a dozen blank lines than five lines full of textgraphic .signature file. Harumph. -- ||| Ken Badertscher (ames!atari!kbad) ||| Atari R&D System Software Engine / | \ #include <disclaimer>