ray@j.cc.purdue.edu (Ray Moody) (07/10/88)
As you may have guessed by my silence, the comp.sources.cbm and
comp.binaries.cbm vote has failed. The total for comp.binaries.cbm is 123 in
favor and 52 against. For comp.sources.cbm, 112 in favor and 32 against. (for
those of you that are reading this in comp.sys.cbm and don't know, it takes 100
more yes votes than no votes.)
There seems to be a lot of interest, but not quite enough to justify
creating a group in the comp hierarchy. There are several things we can do.
1) We can create the groups in the alternate hierarchy.
My local news administrator has shown me how I can create a
newsgroup in the alternate hierarchy, but he also warned me that there
is no guarantee that anyone will honor my newgroup message. I don't
plan to do this until after after there has been some discussion in
alt.config, if at all.
Comp.sys.cbm readers: I know that the alternate news hierarchy has
limited distribution. Do you want to to have newsgroups created in the
alternate hierarchy for the distribution of software for 8-bit Commodore
machines? Mail me your comments.
2) We can wait and vote again later.
We stand a better chance of winning if we vote in the fall when
colleges are session. This might make a difference considering how
close the vote was.) Create a mailing list.
4) Use comp.sys.cbm.
Needless to say, the net-gods would be furious if we started posting
huge binaries to comp.sys.cbm. But there is nothing to stop people from
*reviewing* free software in this newsgroup. People could give a quick
description of their favorite piece of software, and quote electronic
mail address from which the software may be obtained. I could arrange
to archive comp.sys.cbm (to a magtape, of course!) and provide back
issues for people looking for software. I could also archive any
binaries sent to me.
Of course, this offer is contingent upon me not being overwhelmed
by requests to dig stuff out of the archives... Or upon me being able
to find enough help.
5) None of the above.
This is a call for ideas. I am sure many people reading this have
good ones. Lets talk about them!
Rayjrg@hpirs.HP.COM (Jeff Glasson) (07/12/88)
Here are my thoughts on the alternatives: > 1) We can create the groups in the alternate hierarchy. > That's always a solution, however, there has even been yelling in the alt.* groups about randomly created newsgroups. And there is the problem of limited distribution. > 2) We can wait and vote again later. > Judging by the vote, it may indeed make a difference. But what about now? > > 4) Use comp.sys.cbm. > > Needless to say, the net-gods would be furious if we started posting > huge binaries to comp.sys.cbm. *** MILD FLAME ON *** I say let's use comp.sys.cbm. If enough people yell and scream about putting binaries here, they'll give us the binaries group we asked for. At least it will show that there really is a need for a CBM binaries group. Besides, comp.sys.cbm isn't archived at most sites while I believe that the com.binaries.* groups are more widely archived. *** MILD FLAME OFF *** Jeff Glasson Hewlett-Packard Information Software Division UUCP: {ucbvax,hplabs}!hpda!jrg Internet: jrg%hpirs@hplabs.HP.COM
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (07/13/88)
I think that users' groups and such are a more appropriate
mechanism for distributing Commodore 8-bit software. You are
welcome to set up your own network of 8-bit micros calling each
other on the phone, but please don't sent it through our network
at our expense. We will even give you all our freely available
C language software for modem communications, netnews, and such, if
you can make it run on your machines.
I would refuse any alt.binaries groups immediately.
A sources group for 6502-based software would likely be mostly
assembler language or BASIC programs, which are not likely to be useful
anyway. (A major reason that I like sources is that I can port them to
my system even if they didn't originally run on it.)
--
John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid,amdahl}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com
"And if there's danger don't you try to overlook it,
Because you knew the job was dangerous when you took it"woodsb@killer.UUCP (Brent L. Woods) (07/15/88)
In article <4855@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >I think that users' groups and such are a more appropriate >mechanism for distributing Commodore 8-bit software. You are Oh? We seem to have no problems with distributing sources and binaries for Commodore 32 bit machines (I know whereof I speak-- see below). >welcome to set up your own network of 8-bit micros calling each >other on the phone, but please don't sent it through our network >at our expense. We will even give you all our freely available Our? Oh, my, not again. Tell me, just who is represented by your use of "our," Mr. Gilmore? >C language software for modem communications, netnews, and such, if >you can make it run on your machines. > >I would refuse any alt.binaries groups immediately. Hmm. This doesn't surprise me. > >A sources group for 6502-based software would likely be mostly >assembler language or BASIC programs, which are not likely to be useful >anyway. On the contrary. I think they would be *quite* useful to users of 6502 based machines. After all, that's the purpose of creating the groups, to serve users of those machines. Objecting because the sources and binaries would not be of immediate use to *you* strikes me as a very self-centered attitude, Mr. Gilmore. For the record, I supported the creation of the groups, even though I no longer use my C128. -- Brent Woods, Co-Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.amiga USENET: woodsb@killer.UUCP USNAIL: 320 Brown St., #406 / W. Lafayette, IN 47906 MABELL: +1 (317) 743-8421
pete@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Pete Hsi ) (07/17/88)
In article <4855@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >I think that users' groups and such are a more appropriate >mechanism for distributing Commodore 8-bit software. True, but I got more useful stuff from this net than from my user's group AND for machines besides my own. Besides that, I saw and have heard of illegal software copying going on at these groups... heavens, you don't want to promote that, do you? At least here on the nets, there is a way to moderate such activities (well, at least shame 'em). >You are >welcome to set up your own network of 8-bit micros calling each >other on the phone, but please don't sent it through our network >at our expense. We will even give you all our freely available >C language software for modem communications, netnews, and such, if >you can make it run on your machines. I beg your pardon, this is not a flame but can you please define "our network" and "We"? Somehow, that paragraph didn't rub me the right way (and by reading other follow up articles, I think you offended others as well). >A sources group for 6502-based software would likely be mostly >assembler language or BASIC programs, which are not likely to be useful >anyway. That's a two edged sword, friend. I don't find programs for other machines particularly useful either but they still do clutter up "our network". > (A major reason that I like sources is that I can port them to >my system even if they didn't originally run on it.) Agreed! As a supporter for a 8-bit CBM binary or source group, I am not saying to create a newsgroup for every machine available. Rather, I am saying to create them as the need arises and it "done did" for 8-bit Commodore machines. Let me say this as nice as possible: John, your posting strikes me as elitist and selfish. Just because you do not find a newsgroup personally useful doesn't mean you have to be against it. Remember, you are not the sole user of this net. --Pete Hsi Univ of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC = "U Must Be Crazee" :-) Internet/ARPA: pete@umbc3.umd.edu -or- pete@umbc2.umd.edu Bitnet: pete@umbc "Cobol is a virus from outer space"
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (07/17/88)
In article <1085@umbc3.UMD.EDU>, pete@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Pete Hsi ) writes: > As a supporter for a 8-bit CBM binary or source group, I am not saying to > create a newsgroup for every machine available. Rather, I am saying to create > them as the need arises and it "done did" for 8-bit Commodore machines. How about alt.sources.cbm, moderated by someone with time, disk and interest; and use it for *all* cbm related programs. A moderator would keep the s/n ratio way down (and all the other good things) moderators do. An archive site would make it near perfect and solve the problem of 50k people saying "I need a simple program in basic that converts from PETSCII to ASCII, could you please post one?". -- Skate UNIX or go home, boogie boy... [Obscure joke goes here] J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 ..!bellcore!tness1!/
rickc@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM (Rick Clements) (07/19/88)
In article <1085@umbc3.UMD.EDU> pete@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Pete Hsi (C)) writes: >Let me say this as nice as possible: John, your posting strikes me as elitist >and selfish. Just because you do not find a newsgroup personally useful >doesn't mean you have to be against it. Remember, you are not the sole user of >this net. I have noticed dislike of eight bit machines on the net. This doesn't apply just to the C64/C128. For example, the following discussion on C (paraphrased because I no longer have the text): ... type int should be used because it is the natural size of the machine. ... type int is at least 16 bits wide. I was begining to belive I was the only person who didn't believe bigger is, by defenition, better.