ray@vantage.UUCP (Ray Liere) (03/11/91)
Since other sites may be in this position as regards receiving sources
over USENET, I would appreciate your input ...
It seems to me that ... those unhappy with the turnaround time (the time
between submission and posting) in comp.sources.unix could submit to
comp.sources.misc. Obviously this is not occurring in several cases,
so I would appreciate your thoughts on:
1) what are the main reasons why software is posted to alt.sources,
versus other places ...
2) your opinions (good or bad) with alt.sources software
Our site currently does not receive alt.sources .. we receive only the
comp.sources.misc and comp.sources.unix insofar as source newsgroups goes.
As evidenced by announcements posted in many newsgroups ("xxx posted to
alt.sources"), increasingly greater numbers of people are electing to
post their sources to alt.sources.
I am to evaluate whether we should add alt.sources.* to our incoming news
feed. Phone line costs are a concern, but the major concern is disk space
and time spent "self-moderating" what comes in.
Discussions are currently going on relating to satisfaction/dissatisfaction
with comp.sources.unix and on the possibility of starting a new
newsgroup (comp.sources.reviewed). I want to assure you that I am NOT trying
(or wanting!) to extend that discussion. I am really in a quandry as to
whether to add alt.sources and why csm is not used more, and would like
your help.
If you prefer emailing responses to maintain anonymity, I would be glad to
post a summary (without names) of comments I receive via email.
Thanks for your input.
Ray Liere
Vantage Consulting and Research Corporation
voice: +1 503 657 7294
uucp: uunet!nwnexus.WA.COM!vantage!ray
-or-
hplabs!hpubvwa!hpupora!vantage!ray
Internet: ray%vantage@nwnexus.WA.COMtneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (03/12/91)
In article <17900010@vantage.UUCP> ray@vantage.UUCP (Ray Liere) writes: >Our site currently does not receive alt.sources .. we receive only the >comp.sources.misc and comp.sources.unix insofar as source newsgroups goes. That's your choice. There are plenty of sites that will feed it to you. >I am to evaluate whether we should add alt.sources.* to our incoming news >feed. Phone line costs are a concern, but the major concern is disk space >and time spent "self-moderating" what comes in. Oh, good grief. Just take the group. Skip the "Royal Commission To Determine Whether Rec.boats.paddle Should Be Received Along With Rec.boats" approach. If you don't like what comes in, you can drop it.
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (03/17/91)
As quoted from <17900010@vantage.UUCP> by ray@vantage.UUCP (Ray Liere): +--------------- | It seems to me that ... those unhappy with the turnaround time (the time | between submission and posting) in comp.sources.unix could submit to | comp.sources.misc. Obviously this is not occurring in several cases, | so I would appreciate your thoughts on: | 1) what are the main reasons why software is posted to alt.sources, | versus other places ... +--------------- Insofar as comp.sources.misc is concerned, I suspect I get most of the blame... twice. First because things got downright nasty at work (and are about to get worse AGAIN), so I didn't have time to do my job *or* choose someone else to do it, and second because it looks like my chosen successor isn't doing a whole lot better in the posting-time department. There are also the folks who reject the concept of moderation completely. It's not clear whether there are more of them than prefer moderation, nor is it clear if any of them are numbered among the group that likes to flame (including automatic flaming) people who post non-source to alt.sources. What *is* clear is that there have been people who chose alt.sources over comp.sources.misc because it is unmoderated (and told me when they did it). I suspect that moderating sources groups demands too much time for most of the net.denizens willing to do the job --- comp.sources.unix, comp.sources.misc, and even comp.sources.games tend to have rather excessive lead times. ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery Ham: KB8JRR on 40m, 10m when time Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG permits; also 2m, 220, 440, 1200 America OnLine: KB8JRR // Delphi: ALLBERY AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH
wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker) (03/18/91)
In article <17900010@vantage.UUCP> ray@vantage.UUCP (Ray Liere) writes: >I am to evaluate whether we should add alt.sources.* to our incoming news >feed. Phone line costs are a concern, but the major concern is disk space >and time spent "self-moderating" what comes in. alt.sources is 20% noise, 25% flames about the noise but, overall, a very good source of source (of course). A great deal of odd and usefull things appear there. It is the Great Alpha Test dumping ground. It is essentially a comp.sources.unmoderated (uh oh, no flames, CFD, BVD please). I think you'll like it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Warren Tucker, TuckerWare emory!n4hgf!wht or wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US "An ANSI C elephant: just like the real one, but the position, shape and length of the trunk and tail are left to the vendor's discretion." -- me
kent@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM (-Kent+) (03/21/91)
In article <1991Mar16.202344.17575@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes: >As quoted from <17900010@vantage.UUCP> by ray@vantage.UUCP (Ray Liere): >+--------------- >| It seems to me that ... those unhappy with the turnaround time (the time >| between submission and posting) in comp.sources.unix could submit to >| comp.sources.misc. Obviously this is not occurring in several cases, >| so I would appreciate your thoughts on: >| 1) what are the main reasons why software is posted to alt.sources, >| versus other places ... >+--------------- > >Insofar as comp.sources.misc is concerned, I suspect I get most of the >blame... twice. First because things got downright nasty at work (and are >about to get worse AGAIN), so I didn't have time to do my job *or* choose >someone else to do it, and second because it looks like my chosen successor >isn't doing a whole lot better in the posting-time department. Uuuhhh ... First I have to have sources *before* I can post them. I have about a 21 hour average in posting from the time the submission hits my mailbox. Of course, when problems are detected, I send mail to the submitter asking that the problem be corrected if I can't fix it myself. This adds to any delay that there maybe in the net receiving the package. The delay in those cases is *well* worth the time... :-) >There are also the folks who reject the concept of moderation completely. There are different types of "moderation". Moderation to do complete testing and evaluation have totally different demands in regards to time to post than moderation that just assures that the parts are intact, can be unpacked correctly, are all there, do not exceed the processing size of some older or smaller systems, formated with archive headers, etc. >What *is* clear is that there have been people who chose alt.sources over >comp.sources.misc because it is unmoderated (and told me when they did it). That is a pity. The distribution and archiving of alt.sources is weak to say the least. As an alpha/beta testing distribution channel alt.sources is great. As a final distribution and archiving mechanism it is extremely limited. Yes there are people who are religiously opposed to *all* types of moderation. That is too bad for the sources they post. Had their sources been posted to c.s.misc or another moderated sources group the user community would not have to search to find a site that has a complete enough alt.sources archive to locate their contributions. >I suspect that moderating sources groups demands too much time for most of the >net.denizens willing to do the job --- comp.sources.unix, comp.sources.misc, >and even comp.sources.games tend to have rather excessive lead times. Sorry but that is just *not* the case in c.s.misc... Maybe someone else does but I don't call 21 hours excessive. :-) -Kent+ -- Kent Landfield INTERNET: kent@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM Sterling Software, IMD UUCP: uunet!sparky!kent Phone: (402) 291-8300 FAX: (402) 291-4362 Please send comp.sources.misc-related mail to kent@uunet.uu.net.
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (03/22/91)
(Just in case... sending this again. I don't think it made it last time.) I recently posted an article questioning Kent Landfield's performance on comp.sources.misc. Unfortunately, this was after reading of a number of problems in c.s.m... which came from a "time warp" and essentially dated back to when I was trying desperately to get it passed on to someone else. (I had also noted that c.s.m looked rather empty locally... probably because nobody trusts it any more. That, as I said before, probably is *my* fault.) Apologies to all, including Kent and anyone who has been scared away from comp.sources.misc. ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery Ham: KB8JRR on 2m, 220, 440, 1200 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG (QRT on HF until local problems fixed) America OnLine: KB8JRR // Delphi: ALLBERY AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH
woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar21.033325.26029@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM> kent@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM (-Kent+) writes: > In article <1991Mar16.202344.17575@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes: > >As quoted from <17900010@vantage.UUCP> by ray@vantage.UUCP (Ray Liere): > >| It seems to me that ... those unhappy with the turnaround time (the time > >| between submission and posting) in comp.sources.unix could submit to > >| comp.sources.misc. >[....] > >What *is* clear is that there have been people who chose alt.sources over > >comp.sources.misc because it is unmoderated (and told me when they did it). > > That is a pity. The distribution and archiving of alt.sources is weak to say > the least. As an alpha/beta testing distribution channel alt.sources is great. > As a final distribution and archiving mechanism it is extremely limited. Yes >[....] > >I suspect that moderating sources groups demands too much time for most of the > >net.denizens willing to do the job --- comp.sources.unix, comp.sources.misc, > >and even comp.sources.games tend to have rather excessive lead times. > > Sorry but that is just *not* the case in c.s.misc... Maybe someone else > does but I don't call 21 hours excessive. :-) Well, as has been stated, there are different kinds of moderation. Perhaps if people used alt.sources more effectively as an alpha/beta testing ground, final versions for posting to c.s.u wouldn't require as much work from the moderator for final testing! Yes, that means longer lead times, but I'd rather have c.s.u be a slow source of useful, tested, portable, code; rather than have it be filled with many versions of the same code, as well as numerous patches, all that could have been eliminated with beta testing. -- Greg A. Woods woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP ECI and UniForum Canada +1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] VE3TCP Toronto, Ontario CANADA Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL
ray@vantage.UUCP (Ray Liere) (04/07/91)
I appreciate the helpful comments made by so many in response to my
original posting requesting opinions on alt.sources as compared to
comp.sources.misc and comp.sources.unix. I found the information very helpful.
As promised, here are the anonymous-ized email replies that I received:
-----
-----
I would estimate the volume to be less than 3 Mb/month. ...
I have found some interesting things in alt.sources, but caveat emptor... :-)
-----
-----
I find that *both* alt.sources and comp.sources.misc are *very* useful
resources. Typically, people post sources to alt.sources
when they (1) aren't real sure how debugged or portable they are, but think
they still might be useful, (2) don't want to go 3 rounds with the moderator
over packaging (although our fine comp.sources.misc moderators have been
*eminently* reasonable) (3) just want it out today, and are not willing to
wait (although again, the comp.sources.misc turnaround has been *very*
short. The biggest problem is that one is theoretically supposed to post to
comp.sources.unix *first* with UN*X postings, and getting a response from
the moderator can (net.rumors(TM) are true here) take quite a long time).
I have had no more trouble compiling the sources from alt.sources than from
the moderated groups, overall -- I think that the insistence of some users
of these groups that everything build 100% correctly on their bizarre
machine right off the net is a sure way to make sure they never receive any
software. I *expect* to have to hack the Makefiles a bit and change a bit
of the C, and I'm rarely disappointed, and it's rarely very difficult.
I don't think I'd worry too much about the "self-moderated" nature of the
sources -- there used to be an alt.sources-index which would index source
postings, as well, although I'm not sure that's still supported...
Thus, all in all, I highly recommend an alt.sources feed for your site.
------
------
My site doesn't get alt.sources either, but as I understand it, the main
purpose of alt.sources is to distribute beta test versions of software.
Of course, much of what comes out on comp.sources.misc isn't past the beta
test point either, and sometimes fairly solid software may be posted to
alt.sources because the comp.sources moderators appear to be dead.
If it is like any other unmoderated newsgroup you can expect to have to
wade through a fair amount of line noise that has little to do with
sources.
------
------
alt.sources is useful.
There isn't _that_ much garbage in there (most of it is moans about the amount
of garbage at the moment!), and it only takes a few seconds to read...
Here are the Subjects of all the current articles. I've marked the ones
(from memory, I didn't look at the files again) with source in them.
It's unusually low at the moment because someone annoyed everyone by posting
some awfully tedious jargon file to lots of groups.
[ full list omitted: summary -- 28 entries, 10 sources]
-----
-----
Thanks again for your constructive comments.
Ray Liere
Vantage Consulting and Research Corporation
voice: +1 503 657 7294
uucp: uunet!nwnexus.WA.COM!vantage!ray
-or-
hplabs!hpubvwa!hpupora!vantage!ray
Internet: ray%vantage@nwnexus.WA.COM