fry@huma1.HARVARD.EDU (David Fry) (07/12/88)
Flame on I have been wondering lately about the selection of files that the moderator of comp.binaries.mac, Roger Long, sends across the net. But today I saw the worst yet: is it really necessary to distribute a Perfectionist DA that does nothing but change the file attributes of TEXT files so they can be opened more simply with Word Perfect? How many of us have Word Perfect, and how many of those are transferring files from a PC often enough to warrant such a program, which does something that can be done with Word Perfect itself. Comp.binaries.mac has become the place for multi-part game postings (many of which have bugs), Humpback jokes, sound gadgets, and huge multi-part commercial demos. I'm still bothered by the Design Demo posted months ago. I'm not acquainted enough with the USENET hierarchy to compute the cost of the Humpback fiasco, including the subsequent "is it a joke, yeah, it's a joke" debate, but I bet it would have bought somebody quite a few Macintoshes. Lately some of the programs coming across have even been accompanied by apologies from their authors who are sorry they aren't more important. If the programmer himself says "sorry it doesn't do anything more yet" why are we interested in seeing it? I think of comp.binaries.mac as existing to dispense interesting and useful programs to USENET users, programs which demonstrate a new technique or an unusual idea. It would be particularly nice if they have a scientific or educational bent to them, since USENET goes to so many universities. I can certainly understand if the author of Perfectionist wanted to write his DA as a simple exercise, or as a tool to do something special just for him, or just because it was fun. I write little programs all the time for those reasons. But it is the moderator's job to weed them out. At least we could expect source code for such little programs. There's no reason to comment more on the source code drought, though. The weather analogy in "drought" is appropriate, too: everyone complains but nobody does anything about it. I can remember several programs from comp.binaries.mac that represent the philosophy I have in mind. 1) A French prime factorization program was posted over a year ago that implemented sophisticated techniques that I have never seen on a micro before. Admittedly it is useful to a limited number of people, but it was state-of-the-art stuff. 2) MEdit was a free and ambitious text editor from Europe that included a macro language, the first Mac editor to have one. 3) The P.S.B.U. program posted recently to do hard disk backups, using a scripting language. These programs were different from what you see on CompuServe, extended what was currently available, and were written for (apparently) altruistic reasons. The moderator may respond that nobody submits those type of programs any more. I don't know what others are doing, but I have posted several versions of my GrayView program (including the latest which has ImageStudio-like editing features) and my DispPICT HyperCard XCMD that displays color images inside HyperCard. I don't mean to suggest these are special, but I don't understand why they wouldn't be interesting to USENETers; they are completely free and do things you can't do otherwise. I humbily submitted them, but they never appeared. I don't mean to attack Mr. Long personally, I'm just more and more distressed at seeing "Part 3 of 8 GoofyMacGame". Perhaps this message will inspire more careful posting, or inspire more creative programming. I also don't mean to attack the author of Perfectionist; it was just that DA that set me off. Flame Off David Fry fry@huma1.harvard.EDU Department of Mathematics fry@huma1.bitnet Harvard University ...!harvard!huma1!fry Cambridge, MA 02138
mcnabb@m.cs.uiuc.edu (07/12/88)
I beg to differ with at least a portion of the flame alleging
uselessness of recent postings in comp.binaries.mac.
The Perfectionist DA would be quite useful to many more people if it
allowed one to specify the type/creator fields explicitly. Even better,
before beginning the process of allowing selection of text files for
adoption by a different appl, it should allow one to choose any favorite
application that can handle text files. It should then look in that
application to find the proper type and creator fields to use, and then
start the adoption process (i.e. user should not even have to know the
magic strings for his/her application).
So here's another request to the author of this (perhaps quite useful
after all) DA to post the source.
D. McNabb
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
mcnabb@cs.uiuc.edu
...!{cmcl2,seismo,uunet}!uiucdcs!mcnabbbytebug@dhw68k.cts.com (Roger L. Long) (07/12/88)
In article <4927@husc6.harvard.edu> David Fry (fry@huma1.UUCP) flames: | I have been wondering lately about the selection of files that |the moderator of comp.binaries.mac, Roger Long, sends across the |net. But today I saw the worst yet: is it really necessary to |distribute a Perfectionist DA that does nothing but change the |file attributes of TEXT files so they can be opened more simply |with Word Perfect? How many of us have Word Perfect, and how many |of those are transferring files from a PC often enough to warrant |such a program, which does something that can be done with Word |Perfect itself. My job as moderator is not to decide what is important enough to post. I leave that to the people who post software. What I *do* do is try to check out as much of the software as I can to verify that it at least runs to some extent; verify as best I can that its not copyrighted, or if it is, that permission is given to post; to package it in UseNet sized chunks; and to post to the net at a rate to keep the volume at "reasonable" levels. The only time rating of the software occasionally comes into play is when something I deem of some importance gets posted, I'll often move it to the top of the queue. Certainly, I don't expect all of what I post to be exciting and interesting to everyone on the net. | Lately some of the programs coming across have even been |accompanied by apologies from their authors who are sorry they |aren't more important. If the programmer himself says "sorry it |doesn't do anything more yet" why are we interested in seeing it? If it's of no interest to you, hit the 'n' key. | I think of comp.binaries.mac as existing to dispense interesting |and useful programs to USENET users, programs which demonstrate a |new technique or an unusual idea. It would be particularly nice |if they have a scientific or educational bent to them, since |USENET goes to so many universities. I can certainly understand |if the author of Perfectionist wanted to write his DA as a simple |exercise, or as a tool to do something special just for him, or |just because it was fun. I write little programs all the time |for those reasons. But it is the moderator's job to weed them |out. No, it's specifically *NOT* the moderator's job to weed out "uninteresting" software. One of the top concerns of people when mod.mac.binaries was created was that moderation would remove software that they considered useful. | At least we could expect source code for such little programs. |There's no reason to comment more on the source code drought, |though. The weather analogy in "drought" is appropriate, too: |everyone complains but nobody does anything about it. Post source. | I can remember several programs from comp.binaries.mac that |represent the philosophy I have in mind. 1) A French prime |factorization program was posted over a year ago that |implemented sophisticated techniques that I have never seen on |a micro before. Admittedly it is useful to a limited number of |people, but it was state-of-the-art stuff. 2) MEdit was a free |and ambitious text editor from Europe that included a macro |language, the first Mac editor to have one. 3) The P.S.B.U. |program posted recently to do hard disk backups, using a |scripting language. These programs were different from what you |see on CompuServe, extended what was currently available, and |were written for (apparently) altruistic reasons. I'm sure that there are plenty of people on the net who'd tell you that these programs were of absolutely no interest to them, and that I shouldn't have posted them. | The moderator may respond that nobody submits those type of |programs any more. Since I post what I receive, you can deduce that nobody submits those types of programs any more. | I don't know what others are doing, but I |have posted several versions of my GrayView program (including |the latest which has ImageStudio-like editing features) and my |DispPICT HyperCard XCMD that displays color images inside |HyperCard. I don't mean to suggest these are special, but I don't |understand why they wouldn't be interesting to USENETers; they |are completely free and do things you can't do otherwise. I |humbily submitted them, but they never appeared. Well, if you didn't see them posted, then you should have sent me mail and asked why. I would have responded that your postings hadn't made it here, and requested you repost, or mail them directly to me, and suggested several possible mail routes. I see no need to flame me, since I do the best I can, on a totally volunteer basis. | I don't mean to attack Mr. Long personally, I'm just more and |more distressed at seeing "Part 3 of 8 GoofyMacGame". Perhaps |this message will inspire more careful posting, or inspire more |creative programming. I also don't mean to attack the author of |Perfectionist; it was just that DA that set me off. |David Fry fry@huma1.harvard.EDU |Department of Mathematics fry@huma1.bitnet |Harvard University ...!harvard!huma1!fry |Cambridge, MA 02138 -- Roger L. Long dhw68k!bytebug
tedj@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Ted Johnson) (07/13/88)
>more distressed at seeing "Part 3 of 8 GoofyMacGame". Perhaps
Can you please send me "Part 3 of 8 GoofyMacGame"? It didn't show up
on my site. :-) :-) :-)
Seriouly, maybe the only sort of software which gets sent to
comp.binaries.mac is goofy, and so that's all that there is
to distribute.
-Tedsbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (07/13/88)
In article <8400013@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcnabb@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >The Perfectionist DA would be quite useful to many more people if it >allowed one to specify the type/creator fields explicitly. Even better would be if someone posted the program "Lone Ranger" (that might not be the exact name, but it's close). It allows you to search and replace any type and/or creator for a whole directory of files at a time. I think it works recursively, too, so I suppose you could with 1 click change all the Tops files on your disk to WordPerfect (or whatever the original intention of Perfectionist was). In fact, if I can find it on my HD at home, I'll post it to comp.binaries.mac tonight. BTW, if anyone from CE Software is listening, I always thought that DiskTop should do this (since it does pretty much everything else). -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." {uunet,cmcl2}!esquire!sbb | - David Letterman
paulm@nikhefk.UUCP (Paul Molenaar) (07/14/88)
In article <4927@husc6.harvard.edu> fry@huma1.UUCP (David Fry) writes:
#
#Flame on
#
# I have been wondering lately about the selection of files that
#the moderator of comp.binaries.mac, Roger Long, sends across the
#net. But today I saw the worst yet: is it really necessary to
#distribute a Perfectionist DA that does nothing but change the
#file attributes of TEXT files so they can be opened more simply
#with Word Perfect? How many of us have Word Perfect, and how many
#of those are transferring files from a PC often enough to warrant
#such a program, which does something that can be done with Word
#Perfect itself.
#David Fry fry@huma1.harvard.EDU
I'm by no means offended by your remarks. I'm inclined to agree with
you in a general sense. But I agree mostly with the moderator that he should
do nothing but act as an intermediary. If the description of a posting
does not appeal to me, I fail to hit the 'w' key. A simple 'n' will
do the trick and does not get me into a rage like Perfectionist obviously
did to you.
As to posting the source: i really hacked this DA. I just needed the
functionality of the beast, because colleagues of mine, first time Macintosh
users, hated to be othered by changing file type and creator. So it did
no more than just that. Sorry that I offended you by posting it, but
the remarks my colleagues uttered gave me the idea that maybe one or two
other people in the world (I _do_ think there are one or two people
using both Tops and Word Perfect :) might find it useful. And exactly
the kind of people that don't even know type and creator exist.
People who responded to me by mail (I did reach those one or two ;)
will receive the source and as a part of a learning project I'll try
and enhance the program.
Paul Molenaar
"Just checking the walls"
- Basil Fawlty -
--
Paul Molenaar
"Just checking the walls"
- Basil Fawlty -osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP (07/14/88)
[Roger Long, moderator of comp.sys.mac, replies to David Fry's criticisms that the group is cluttered with dull, trite programs, and that it is the moderator's (Long's) responsibility to not post them] An impressive display of level-headedness and perspicuity, Mr. Long. I applaud your position. The last thing in the WORLD we need here is some guy deciding what is "interesting and useful" and what isn't. Keep up the good work. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ >--Ron Morgan--------------{ames, utah-cs, uunet}!ut-sally!ut-emx!osmigo-------< >--Univ. of Texas--{gatech, harvard, pyramid, sequent}!ut-sally!ut-emx!osmigo--< >--Austin, Texas--------osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP-------osmigo@emx.utexas.edu---------< =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
fry@huma1.HARVARD.EDU (David Fry) (07/14/88)
In article <9634@dhw68k.cts.com> bytebug@dhw68k.cts.com (Roger L. Long) writes: >In article <4927@husc6.harvard.edu> David Fry (fry@huma1.UUCP) flames: > >My job as moderator is not to decide what is important enough to post. >I leave that to the people who post software. What I *do* do is try to >check out as much of the software as I can to verify that it at least >runs to some extent; verify as best I can that its not copyrighted, or >if it is, that permission is given to post; to package it in UseNet >sized chunks; and to post to the net at a rate to keep the volume at >"reasonable" levels. The only time rating of the software occasionally >comes into play is when something I deem of some importance gets >posted, I'll often move it to the top of the queue. This comes as news to me and changes the whole light of my original posting. I thought the idea of a moderated newsgroup was to weed out "unworthy" messages or postings. I see that you are doing that to an extent by censoring commercial software, etc. I certainly can't fault Mr. Long after all. It is my natural inclination to say the group *should* be moderated in my original sense, but the main purpose for that would be to cut down on net usage, expecting massive amounts of programs to be posted everyday. Since we see that's not happening, the flow on comp.binaries.mac is quite reasonable (from the perspective of Mac-users), it's unnecessary to create hard feelings by having a benevolent dictator deciding which programs live and which die. I retract my original flame, but I would still encourage the net public to post more carefully. I don't think Humpback was worth the cost. >If it's of no interest to you, hit the 'n' key. I'm very good at hitting the 'n' key, since I get so much practice. I was being concerned about the use of resources. This stuff costs *somebody* some money. >Well, if you didn't see them [two programs written by me] > posted, then you should have sent me mail >and asked why. I would have responded that your postings hadn't made >it here, and requested you repost, or mail them directly to me, and >suggested several possible mail routes. I see no need to flame me, >since I do the best I can, on a totally volunteer basis. I will repost the above programs, and the source for the XCMD. We all appreciate the work Mr. Long does at his expense; I was merely suggesting improvements, improvements that would, if anything, make his job easier. David Fry fry@zariski.harvard.EDU Department of Mathematics fry@zariski.bitnet Harvard University ...!harvard!zariski!fry Cambridge, MA 02138
geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) (07/14/88)
In article <4947@husc6.harvard.edu> fry@huma1.UUCP (David Fry) writes: >I retract my original flame, but I would still encourage the >net public to post more carefully. I don't think Humpback was >worth the cost. > While Humpback isn't something one will return to again and again, it is a nice joke and a meditation on the nature of the universe. I think it was refreshing, myself. I think it was worth the cost relative to the trite nonsense that is carried by the majority of the newsgroups.
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (07/14/88)
Maybe no one is writing useful PD or shareware software for the
macintosh any more. I agree with David Fry that for one reason or
another, comp.binaries.mac has had (almost) nothing but junk.
The recent postings seem to be either highly-system specific (MPW
tools), or not serious (Humpback), or trivial little tools to change
creator types, for people who HAPPEN to have Word Processor X and
HAPPEN to encounter problem Y frequently. Or the software is for
people who mainly have 4Mb or 5Mb of memory to burn (SSSwitcher).
Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,ihnp4,harvard}!uiucdcs!gillieshalff@nprdc.arpa (Henry Halff) (07/15/88)
In article <4927@husc6.harvard.edu> fry@huma1.UUCP (David Fry) writes: > >But today I saw the worst yet: is it really necessary to >distribute a Perfectionist DA that does nothing but change the >file attributes of TEXT files so they can be opened more simply >with Word Perfect? How many of us have Word Perfect, and how many >of those are transferring files from a PC often enough to warrant >such a program, which does something that can be done with Word >Perfect itself. At least two, the poster and me. It's really hard to judge the number of people that will pick up a posting, particularly after it has been passed around to many bulletin boards. I'm with the moderator on this one. Post 'em all. hh
km@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Ken Mitchum) (07/16/88)
I think that some people are missing the point - it is not the job of the moderator to determine the relative popularity of various programs, or even their utility, only that the programs are what they claim to be, and are not posted illegally. I view comp.binaries.mac much as I view comp.sys.mac, and other newsgroups - only a small percentage of the traffic of the group actually interests me, but I realize that what else is there must interest other people, or it wouldn't be there. Articles are posted for their interest, not their popularity, and the same thing should be true for programs. When I submitted the binaries to "MacJove", I realized that it was a program that would be used by only a small fraction of Mac enthusiasts. However, I felt that it was important to make the program available to the few Mac users who prefer emacs-like editors. If popularity had been a consideration, I am sure the program would have been rejected. My only objection to the posting of software is where something should perhaps be updated before posting, such as the DA based on (only) Volumes 1 to 3 of Inside Macintosh. Ken Mitchum Decision Systems Labs University of Pittsburgh
liberte@zaphod.ncsa.uiuc.edu (07/16/88)
[ /* Written 7:48 am Jul 13, 1988 by sbb@esquire.UUCP in zaphod:comp.sys.mac */
[ In article <8400013@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcnabb@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
[ >The Perfectionist DA would be quite useful to many more people if it
[ >allowed one to specify the type/creator fields explicitly.
[
[ Even better would be if someone posted the program "Lone Ranger" (that
[ might not be the exact name, but it's close). It allows you to search
[ and replace any type and/or creator for a whole directory of files at a
[ time.
Best of all would be a utility that allowed the user to modify
a map between types/creators and applications. The documents would retain their
original type and creator, but could be opened with your favorite application.
I'm told that the Desktop has the necessary info in its resources.
But it would be nice to have a friendly interface that presented a list
of types and creators and allowed the associated application to be changed.
Dan LaLiberte
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu