wnp@iiasa.ac.at (wolf paul) (11/21/90)
In article <2992@litchi.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >three years ago (ahh, for the days when pyramid!csg would email me the >latest Pyramid UUCP for the asking... :-) > /r$ ahh, for the days when there was a reasonably fast turnaround in comp.sources.unix .... but things change, don't they? >-- >Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net. >Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I find it hard to believe that all recent submissions to c.s.u. had invalid bang-path addresses; yet they (and all of us) still lose out because there is nothing appearing in c.s.u. So what difference does a domain-based address make? -- W.N.Paul, Int. Institute f. Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg--Austria PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 INTERNET: wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa!wnp HOME: +43-2236-618514 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET
laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) (11/25/90)
In article <964@iiasa.UUCP> wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net (wolf paul) writes: >In article <2992@litchi.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >>Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net. >>Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >So what difference does a domain-based >address make? > I bet that it means that the aforementioned Mr. Salz is to busy to sort out getting a bounced message home, and that he trusts his Internet host to get it to its proper place. You lose out when he tries to respond only to find that you'd mailed him down a one-way street. att, for example, is listed by pitt in the u.usa.pa maps as "the world's biggest leaf node" because they normally deny forwarding privileges to mail.> -- Laird J. Heal The Usenet is dead! Home: laird@slum.mv.com (Salem, NH) Long Live the Usenet! Away: laird@chinet.chi.il.us
yakker@ucrmath.ucr.edu (matt robinson) (11/26/90)
I posted a program about three weeks ago, which hasn't been posted to
comp.sources.unix as of yet, and I wanted to know if anyone wanted a
copy of this program. It's called MLPD, for Multiple Line Printer
Daemon. What it does is act as a daemon on your local system, and
monitors the queueing of printer jobs to a virtual printer, and
distributes these jobs to any number of real printers. If anyone out
there in net land is interested in this code, please let me know,
as I have it available, and I haven't heard anything from Rich Salz
in quite some time. Hopefully it will be posted to C.S.U, with some
luck, in the future. Take care!
--
Example of Program:
--------
| LP | -----------\
-------- \
/ \ \
/ \ \
------- ------- ---------
| LP1 | | LP2 | . . . | LP(N) |
------- ------- ---------
So all you have to do is type in lpr <file>, and it's off to the fastest
printer! It works now for 4.3 BSD type systems, and SunOS 4.0. I haven't
tried it with any of the other systems yet, but it should be somewhat
portable. If you want a copy, mail me a request, and I will send you out
what I have. Then send me any problems, requests, items that you would
like, as I'll support it to your heart's content, with a bit of time. :)
UCR Rules! (Well, sort of.)
--Matt
______________________________________________________________________________
Matt D. Robinson "...if I only had a brain..."
Systems Programming Group, UC Riverside -- The Scarecrow, The Wizard Of Oz
Internet : yakker@ucrmath.ucr.edu UUCP : ..!ucsd!ucrmath!{yakker,source}wnp@iiasa.ac.at (wolf paul) (11/26/90)
In article <1990Nov24.163906.19793@chinet.chi.il.us> laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) writes: >In article <964@iiasa.UUCP> wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net (wolf paul) writes: >>In article <2992@litchi.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: > >>>Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net. >>>Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>So what difference does a domain-based >>address make? >> >I bet that it means that the aforementioned Mr. Salz is to busy to sort >out getting a bounced message home, and that he trusts his Internet host >to get it to its proper place. You lose out when he tries to respond >only to find that you'd mailed him down a one-way street. Well now, that I understood anyway. My point was: since there has been nothing appearing on c.s.u in a couple of months, despite the many announcements by folks who have sent Mr. Salz submissions, we all seem to lose out anyway as long as that is the state of affairs of c.s.u. 'Coz I can't imagine that all those submitters used non-domain addresses or black!hole!paths, yet nothing gets posted anyway. I know of at least one individual (doug@letni.lonestar.org) who offered to relieve Mr. Salz if the latter was too busy to continue. I understand that this offer was not even dignified by a response from Mr. Salz, yet things have not improved. So we all lose out, regardless of address style :-). -- W.N.Paul, Int. Institute f. Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg--Austria PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 INTERNET: wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa!wnp HOME: +43-2236-618514 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET
mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum) (11/27/90)
In article <971@iiasa.UUCP> wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net (wolf paul) writes: >I know of at least one individual (doug@letni.lonestar.org) who >offered to relieve Mr. Salz if the latter was too busy to continue. I >understand that this offer was not even dignified by a response from >Mr. Salz, yet things have not improved. So start a vote to remove comp.sources.unix from the usenet hierarchy, and then start a vote to create a new moderated group called comp.sources.unix. :) Seriously, comp.sources.unix is a great thing to point to when showing how useful usenet is, technically - it's a shame that that resource hasn't been as, er, resourceful of late. It stands to reason that if Rich is too busy to handle c.s.u., maybe he's too busy to answer all the mail he (doubtless) gets about it - so don't credit to rudeness what may be simply overload. Is there a procedure in the Mighty Usenet Guidelines (that are trumpeted so mightily in comp.unix.wizards) for voting in a new moderator ? I've sent Rich mail before (I had something in the queue for about 4 months, last year - that I finally posted elsewhere) and I'm sure he's aware there are a lot of people who would like to see sources again. mjr. -- Good software will grow smaller and faster as time goes by and the code is improved and features that proved to be less useful are weeded out. [from the programming notebooks of a heretic, 1990]
wnp@iiasa.ac.at (wolf paul) (11/27/90)
In article <1990Nov26.170347.3198@decuac.dec.com> mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum) writes: > It stands >to reason that if Rich is too busy to handle c.s.u., maybe he's >too busy to answer all the mail he (doubtless) gets about it - so >don't credit to rudeness what may be simply overload. What makes one wonder is the fact that when the calls for a replacement moderator reach a climax, then Rich finds the time to release a handful of postings, until the calls have died down, and then the group goes to sleep again. Unfortunately a handful of postings is not enough to actually flush the queue, so the backlog seems to get bigger and bigger. -- W.N.Paul, Int. Institute f. Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg--Austria PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 INTERNET: wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa!wnp HOME: +43-2236-618514 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/28/90)
People may pound on Rich, but perhaps he is the symptom and not the problem. USENET is now a few times larger than when most of us moderators signed on. Rich is out of time. Brandon has quit. People give Eliot no end of trouble. People used to give me a lot more than no end of trouble, until I learned just to ignore them. Source and binary group moderating is probably one of the toughest jobs. The postings are large and complex and take time to look at. You have to deal with duplicates and similar programs, the risk of virus and a pile of other stuff. When it comes to source and binary moderating, it may be the case that you start to get what you pay for. The people doing it should get some compensation. I know Rich is against this, but sometimes I think it may be the only way. If there are 30,000 readers for a source group, then a pittance of few dollars/year would hire a good moderator. I doubt it will happen, though. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) (11/28/90)
In <1990Nov28.020040.5518@looking.on.ca> (Brad Templeton) writes: >People may pound on Rich, but perhaps he is the symptom and not the problem. >Source and binary group moderating is probably one of the toughest jobs. >you get what you pay for. The people doing it should get some compensation. yes, I see a symptom of the problem that we have not instituted a methodology of having multiple moderators share the load and to guarantee "continuity and reliability of service". The idea of "compensation" is undoubtedly flourishing in the mind of people who make networking a income-generating enterprise; I wish them luck.
mrm@sceard.Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov28.020040.5518@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: [...] >Source and binary group moderating is probably one of the toughest jobs. >The postings are large and complex and take time to look at. You have to >deal with duplicates and similar programs, the risk of virus and a pile of >other stuff. > >When it comes to source and binary moderating, it may be the case that you >start to get what you pay for. The people doing it should get some >compensation. I know Rich is against this, but sometimes I think it may be >the only way. If there are 30,000 readers for a source group, then a >pittance of few dollars/year would hire a good moderator. I doubt it will >happen, though. Another way (not the only way :-) is to handle moderation of source and binary groups in the same way that refereed journals handle a similar problem. Have the moderator farm out the submissions to a group of interested folk. Balance the load, share the work, don't put the entire burden on one overworked individual. Put the burden on many overworked individuals. Pay 'em or don't, but don't overload them. Add an X-Reviewed-By: header. Or just let things go along as they are, occasionally greasing the squeeking wheel. -- Mike Murphy mrm@Sceard.COM ucsd!sceard!mrm +1 619 598 5874
jef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer) (11/30/90)
In the referenced message, werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) wrote: } yes, I see a symptom of the problem that we have not instituted } a methodology of having multiple moderators share the load and } to guarantee "continuity and reliability of service". Heh heh heh. "Suggestion: every moderated group should be required to have at least two moderators." -- me, 02nov88. By the way, that discussion thread was titled "Re: comp.sources.unix". What I was talking about was having a designated backup moderator ready to take over should anything (e.g. boredom) happen to the primary. This suggestion was met with outrage amazingly similar to what is currently being posted: "If Jef is so certain that he can do it better, he's welcome to move over to news.groups and start a vote to become moderator." -- Brandon Allbery "Mr. Poskanzer, Shut your yap." -- T. William Wells So nothing has changed in two years, even though the solution has been sitting there waiting for someone to implement it. The problem is that the someone who has to implement it is the moderator himself, so it will never happen. By the way, Rich $alz asked me specifically to send him the next release of pbmplus for distribution via comp.sources.unix. As it stands now, I will not be doing this. It will go to alt.sources, since that is currently the only reliable channel for general-purpose sources. I'm sure this will provoke screams from those who don't get alt.sources. I'll be forwarding those screams to Rich $alz's mailbox. Anyone who wants to moderate comp.sources.unix2, please step forward. I'll certainly vote for such a group. But until then, I'll continue to use alt.sources. I suggest that anyone who has a package in the comp.sources.unix queue do likewise. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef "I'm sorry, I just couldn't help myself."
shurr@cbnews.att.com (Larry A. Shurr) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov28.020040.5518@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: } USENET is now a few times larger than when most of us moderators signed on. } [Moderators are out of time, quitting, and they keep getting abuse] } Source and binary group moderating is probably one of the toughest jobs. } [Lots of things to take care of] } When it comes to source and binary moderating, it may be the case that you } start to get what you pay for. The people doing it should get some } compensation. I know Rich is against this, but sometimes I think it may be } the only way. If there are 30,000 readers for a source group, then a } pittance of few dollars/year would hire a good moderator. I doubt it will } happen, though. Nope, that solution is too sensible... not allowed... What? OK! OK! :-) :-) :-), just a little levity, alright? Seriously, though. This is a problem which I think we need to confront. 'Course in saying that, I'm likely to get a response saying "Fine! You confront it," but Elm has a 'D' key and rn has a 'K' key for situations like that. I don't moderate anything on the net, but I've noticed that despite my increasing selectivity, I'm still saving more than I have time to "self- moderate;" i.e., evaluating what I've saved and deciding what to keep. At that, I have the advantage of getting my stuff largely from moderated sources from which much chaff has already been eliminated or from ftp sources where I specifically choose the items. The point is, if I have difficulty coping with the flow I pick out of the stream just for myself, what must it be like for someone, who's receiving a flood of submissions, from which they must pick and choose what to pass on to us? Where would they find the "spare" time for that activity? For the PC and MAC worlds, there are whole profit-making enterprises employing people full-time to perform an equivalent task (I realize that many of these "shareware distributors" are not really very serious enterprises and may be wanting in their ethical practices, but others are quite serious and really do what they say they do). I don't have the resources to commit to moderating a newsgroup and I sure as heck can't commit a client's resources. Even if I had the resources, I don't know when I would find the time to do it. Since I'm not indepen- dently wealthy, I can't hire anybody to do it. Any proposals for how to fund a moderation project? (That question probably won't go anywhere, either). regards, Larry -- Larry A. Shurr (cbnmva!las@att.ATT.COM or att!cbnmva!las) The end of the world has been delayed due to a shortage of trumpet players. (The above reflects my opinions, not those of AGS or AT&T, but you knew that.)
dnb@meshugge.media.mit.edu (David N. Blank) (11/30/90)
> It will go to alt.sources, since that is currently the only reliable > channel for general-purpose sources. You bet, any code that is submitted gets posted. No one checks for code with security holes, code that doesn't compile, non-standard idioms (makefiles & etc), missing files, non-standard shar formats, portability, & etc. Don't get me wrong, I am greatly indebted to the people who have posted code to alt.sources, and appreciate that they have done so. Both delivery mechanisms have their place in this world. When source is posted, all of the above is done by R. Salz (and done well, in my experience). Perhaps he could make improvements in the service he provides, but if I had to pick between slow or shoddy work, I think I would go for slow. Peace, dNb P.S. I got lost in your logic somewhere. Is this correct: 1) You won't be posting the latest version of pbmplus (a great package, BTW) to comp.sources.unix, only to alt.sources. 2) Those who don't get alt.sources willl scream. 3) You will forward their messages to R.Salz, who didn't post your package because he didn't have it? This is supposed to do exactly what?
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/30/90)
My suggestion may be fine, but there are enough people who disagree with it that it is unlikely to work. Which is either good or sad depending on your viewpoint. USENET has enough people that each would only have to contribute a miniscule amount to get things like good software or full time moderators. But there is not, and won't be -- and perhaps shouldn't be -- a mechanism to do that. The alternative, of collecting a non-miniscule amount from a smaller amount of people, isn't likely to work, whether you give it out to everybody or just those who pay. Don't get me wrong, I like the anarchy of usenet. There are just some things it can't do that would be nice to see. People like Rick Adams and myself have taken other approaches. We have businesses selling definite services that are adjunct to USENET, but we end up giving things away in order to generate good will. Perhaps that is an eventual, partial solution. However, good will is only worth a certain amount -- you can't give away the farm for it. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (11/30/90)
In article <971@iiasa.UUCP> wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net (wolf paul) writes: >Well now, that I understood anyway. My point was: since there has been >nothing appearing on c.s.u in a couple of months, despite the many >announcements by folks who have sent Mr. Salz submissions, Better check your system. Though the flow has been low, a "couple of months" is a gross inaccuracy. My archive shows that on October 11 I received flex2.3, pty, and vixie-cron, and on November 26 is received sps2. That's an average of 1 ever 10 days. (I don't have anything on line before that so the average could go up or down - and that's really not a fair way to compute the average, but you get the idea) (This, after all, isn't a PC bulletin board where you must get a rev to you favorite program at least once per month or feel that you are behind the times). -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) (11/30/90)
Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes: |Anyone who wants to moderate comp.sources.unix2, please step forward. |I'll certainly vote for such a group. But until then, I'll continue |to use alt.sources. I suggest that anyone who has a package in the |comp.sources.unix queue do likewise. why doesn't someone do a call for discussion on comp.sources.posix or something or other. if the sense of outrage is both broad and deep then something should come of it. -- pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms (Bitnet) opinions found above are mine unless marked otherwise.
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (11/30/90)
In article <DNB.90Nov29153511@meshugge.media.mit.edu> dnb@meshugge.media.mit.edu (David N. Blank) writes: >> It will go to alt.sources, since that is currently the only reliable >> channel for general-purpose sources. > >You bet, any code that is submitted gets posted. No one checks for >code with security holes, code that doesn't compile, non-standard >idioms (makefiles & etc), missing files, non-standard shar formats, >portability, & etc. True, that's a risk; but one that a motivated user can tackle himself by editing, compiling, and testing. The power is in all our hands. This is not true with a recalcitrant moderator, who holds the source somewhere we can't get at it. It's a tradeoff. YOU may be scared when a new editor or game comes down the unmoderated pipe, but I'M not. And that's fine; freedom of choice is what the net's all about. An approved, 'safe,' 'debugged' moderated channel is a wonderful idea, but when throughput dries up without adequate explanation or response from the moderator, it's little wonder confidence erodes and people start gravitating to less 'secure' but more available channels.
flint@gistdev.gist.com (Flint Pellett) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov28.020040.5518@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: [...] >Source and binary group moderating is probably one of the toughest jobs. >The postings are large and complex and take time to look at. You have to >deal with duplicates and similar programs, the risk of virus and a pile of >other stuff. > >When it comes to source and binary moderating, it may be the case that you >start to get what you pay for. The people doing it should get some >compensation. I know Rich is against this, but sometimes I think it may be >the only way. If there are 30,000 readers for a source group, then a >pittance of few dollars/year would hire a good moderator. I doubt it will >happen, though. I don't have any problems with the job Rich is doing-- personally, I think it's quite a lot to expect of any volunteer, and I don't see that anyone who isn't willing to volunteer themselves should be complaining about how much he has time to do. On the other side though, it seems to me that it would be reasonable to support a full-time position, (there may not be enough work to require a full-timer, but I bet if the position were created the work load would grow until there was more than enough to keep him/her busy) and that there are several ways that it could be legitimately funded. Some ideas for whoever administers stuff like this to kick around: 1. Have uunet hire this person, and pay their salary from a special surcharge to organizations that sign up to receive this group. If I knew I was going to get even 2-3 decent programs a year, I'd be happy to have my company kick in an extra $100 a year- the question is, are there 300 to 500+ companies total who will? 2. If administering a surcharge is a problem, another distribution channel might be to create a special 900 number that you could call to get this group from, and that would be the only way it was distributed: then let the phone company do the collecting. (Yes, there are problems here since once it is on the net people will just hop over a node and ftp it.) 3. There has been talk about shareware authors getting a free distribution channel through groups like this. Why not expect them to kick in? For example, if I want uunet to distribute my program that I ask to get a $20 registration for, why shouldn't I expect to pay uunet $100 to get them to moderate it? As an author, I guess I'd have to figure that if it isn't good enough to get even 5 registrations back from so I can break even, then it shouldn't be sent out anyway. Distribute 100 shareware programs a year this way and you'll have $10K toward someone's salary. (You should moderate freeware programs for free though, so that you still have a way for people to give away software.) How many programs go out every year? (A moderator fee might also serve as incentive to people to bundle their stuff properly instead of distributing 20 teensy tiny little things individually.) I don't know that much about how uunet operates though, so maybe this idea is all dreaming-- it just seems like uunet is a ready-made place to have something like this run from, and the only question is whether there is enough volume to support it. -- Flint Pellett, Global Information Systems Technology, Inc. 1800 Woodfield Drive, Savoy, IL 61874 (217) 352-1165 uunet!gistdev!flint or flint@gistdev.gist.com
dnb@meshugge.media.mit.edu (David N. Blank) (12/01/90)
> True, that's a risk; but one that a motivated user can tackle himself by > editing, compiling, and testing. I may be a motivated user, but I'm also a busy one. A good moderator can save me and all of the other users supplied by that group lots of cumulative time. > YOU may be scared when a new editor or game comes down the unmoderated > pipe, but I'M not. Not scared, just busy. See above. I noted the following non-security related services a good moderator provides in my original response: Checks for: > ... code that doesn't compile, non-standard idioms (makefiles & > etc), missing files, non-standard shar formats, portability, & etc. > An approved, 'safe,' 'debugged' moderated channel is a wonderful idea, > but when throughput dries up without adequate explanation or response > from the moderator, it's little wonder confidence erodes and people > start gravitating to less 'secure' but more available channels. I'll agree with that. Of course, for an accurate representation of throughput, you have to know what the input rate is. Peace, dNb
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (12/01/90)
[ Followups to news.groups ] According to Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us>: >Heh heh heh. "Suggestion: every moderated group should be required to >have at least two moderators." -- me, 02nov88. A good idea whose time came a long time ago, and continues to today. What say we add this to the guidelines? -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "I've been cranky ever since my comp.unix.wizards was removed by that evil Chip Salzenberg." -- John F. Haugh II
vandys@sequent.uucp (Andrew Valencia) (12/01/90)
news@acsu.Buffalo.EDU writes: >why doesn't someone do a call for discussion on comp.sources.posix or >something or other. if the sense of outrage is both broad and deep >then something should come of it. Can't we find a better way to deal with this than some sort of cliqueish organization stemming from "outrage"? I offered my services as a porting and screening support guy, to offload Rich so that he can (a) maintain the standards of c.s.u, but (b) not have to do it all by himself. He expressed interest. If we could get a couple people to do this, we both help the current newsgroup, plus build up a pool of talent against future times when a new moderator is needed. And we can continue on in a spirit of cooperation, a value which goes WAY back on Usenet. Does this make me one of those mindless rsalz supporters? :-) :-) :-) :-) Just my opinions, Andy Valencia vandys@sequent.com
pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) (12/01/90)
vandys@sequent.uucp (Andrew Valencia) writes: |news@acsu.Buffalo.EDU writes: [that should be pjg not news, and this discussion is scattered in too many groups] |Can't we find a better way to deal with this than some sort of cliqueish |organization stemming from "outrage"? I offered my services as a porting |and screening support guy, to offload Rich so that he can (a) maintain the |standards of c.s.u, but (b) not have to do it all by himself. He expressed |interest. if you'd prefer you can substitute displeasure or some other emotion of dissatisfaction. i suggest a specific plan because 1) c.s.u. has been too slow of late. when the previous moderator left a sucessor was found. now rich hasn't really left but we have heard nothing about a scheme for replacing the moderator. some ideas have been floated but the only way we currently have to deal with this is to create another newsgroup. 2) lots of folks are interested in helping. i don't know how many have contacted rich but perhaps you can provide a bit more detail about the interest he expressed in your offer. such as when you made it, when he answered and what's the current state. 3) i don't believe any group of size greater than one can be any more of a clique than the current one moderating c.s.u. i'm sure that if uunet* simply offered to collect the submissions lots of folks would look them over and the net would debug/screen/port things as a collective effort. automatically and with no fuss. one could make it nicer by publishing the man page in a group with a pointer to ftp/uucp sites. we could call it comp.sources.unix.pointers. *or some other major ftp site. -- pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms (Bitnet) opinions found above are mine unless marked otherwise.
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (12/02/90)
As quoted from <21867@well.sf.ca.us> by jef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer): +--------------- | In the referenced message, werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) wrote: | } yes, I see a symptom of the problem that we have not instituted | } a methodology of having multiple moderators share the load and | } to guarantee "continuity and reliability of service". | | Heh heh heh. "Suggestion: every moderated group should be required to | have at least two moderators." -- me, 02nov88. By the way, that | | "If Jef is so certain that he can do it better, he's welcome | to move over to news.groups and start a vote to become moderator." | -- Brandon Allbery +--------------- At the risk of being flamed: As long as Usenet moderation services are volunteered, do not take place at fixed dates and/or times, and are not supported by a reasonably fast network linking sites where such activity takes place (UUCP exists; flaming about it accomplishes exactly nothing unless you're going to pay for an Internet connection for people who have only UUCP), *and* there is a need to coordinate aspects of the service (specifically, archival information), multiple moderation in archived groups is going to be extremely difficult to implement. It's done now (Australian sub-moderators), but this depends on one side delaying submissions until the other side updates the archive database --- which works for the Aussie case because I get maybe three requests in a year, but would be a major can of worms if we broke it up by, say, NSFnet component regional networks. You also have to consider compatibility: I've been flamed to a crisp by archivers all over the Usenet when I've proposed changes to the archiving scheme. That can ruin good ideas that could otherwise solve the problem, like adding an extra directory level based on the sending moderator, if a majority of the archive sites decide they don't want anything to do with the idea. As things stand now, the most noticeable effect of multiple moderation would be either chaos or very long submission delay times, depending on whether the moderators synchronize their databases before or after sending a submission out. I therefore repeat my earlier response to Jef, expanded: if you think you can make a multiple moderation scheme work, create a newsgroup using it and show me --- and the rest of the Usenet --- that it works. As it stands, trying it on .misc or .unix when they're already drawing flames from readers is a recipe for completely destroying the groups. Something *proven* to work, on the other hand, can be retrofitted once it has been proven. ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (12/02/90)
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes: >| } yes, I see a symptom of the problem that we have not instituted >| } a methodology of having multiple moderators share the load and >| } to guarantee "continuity and reliability of service". >At the risk of being flamed: No flames, just a proposed solution. [Why it would not work deleted ] >I therefore repeat my earlier response to Jef, expanded: if you think you can >make a multiple moderation scheme work, create a newsgroup using it and show >me --- and the rest of the Usenet --- that it works. As it stands, trying it >on .misc or .unix when they're already drawing flames from readers is a recipe >for completely destroying the groups. Something *proven* to work, on the >other hand, can be retrofitted once it has been proven. The problem is that your model for multiple moderators is flawed. Here's how to set it up so that nothing existing now is broken. Establish a moderator and a host and one or more co-moderators. All submittals go to the moderator at the designated host. The submittals are distributed to the co-moderators via mail either manually or automatically by walking a list of co- moderators with a "Deliver" script. The co-moderators do the moderating and packaging and mail the ready-for-posting files back to a special uid on the moderating host. A "Deliver" script for this uid receives the mail, validates the sender as an authorized co- moderator (Snefru?), adds the "Approved:" and archive number lines and pipes it to recnews. With a little more work with Mr. Cron, the post could sit in a queue for a designated number of days for review by the moderator and be posted automatically at the end of the queue time unless he killed it. This entire scheme can be set up in a matter of hours using Smail and Deliver and a few shell scripts. I manage a couple of mailing lists and an NN source archive from this site using these tools. It would almost completely unload the moderator while still having all posts come from one site. The only disadvantage is that each package has to traverse the mail 2 times but even for UUCP sites with telebits, the load would be insignificant. And if someone like UUNET volunteered to be the host as it has for .misc, the performance issue would disappear. I don't have the time to volunteer to be the moderator but I'd be willing to consider being the host machine, especially if UUNET and I could work out a deal relieving me of the cost of the mail traffic. Since comp.sources.unix is effectively dead now, we have little to lose by trying something new. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd | "Vote early, Vote often"
jef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer) (12/03/90)
In the referenced message, allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) wrote: }At the risk of being flamed: Yes indeed. }I therefore repeat my earlier response to Jef, expanded: if you think you can }make a multiple moderation scheme work, create a newsgroup using it and show }me --- and the rest of the Usenet --- that it works. Duh. Me write software. Me not distribute software. Me not run newsgroups. Me not play net.politics. Me just write software. Do you understand yet, or should I try again with even shorter words? I am doing my part. Let the moderators do theirs, or resign. If you don't like my suggestion of a primary moderator and one or more ready-to-go spares, fine. If you think you can do your job without that, fine. YOU SHOW ME. Do *your* job, don't tell me to do it. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef NO TOURBOTS
andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) (12/04/90)
In article <1990Nov24.163906.19793@chinet.chi.il.us> laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) writes: >I bet that it means that the aforementioned Mr. Salz is to busy to sort >out getting a bounced message home, and that he trusts his Internet host >to get it to its proper place. You lose out when he tries to respond >only to find that you'd mailed him down a one-way street. att, for >example, is listed by pitt in the u.usa.pa maps as "the world's biggest >leaf node" because they normally deny forwarding privileges to mail.> Umm, I must be stupid, or something. Yes, we are the world's biggest leaf node. But how can we be responsible for unreplyable mail? (I won't argue newspaths here). We don't forward. Period. Therefore, any message that is unreplyable due to att being in the path could not have been sent in the first place. Call us anti-social if you like, just don't call us late to dinner. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (201) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking!
lee@mport.COM (Lee Crocker) (12/04/90)
As a long time capitalist, I like the idea of paid moderators, though I admit it may be difficult for the academic-socialist-minded netfolk to come up with a good way to pay for it. I think some major commercial site like uunet, apple, sun, etc., would gain a lot of goodwill by hiring someone to do just that. Especially if it helped reduce net traffic, it would not even cost them much in the long run. Imagine the reduction in traffic a moderator for A.S.P. would cause! How much? Just so we have some figures to talk about, I make the following offer: For the cost of hardware and $36,000 a year, I'll become a full- time moderator of one or more groups. I have been a professional programmer for 10 years, and believe I have the expertise and temperament required for the job. So how about it, fellow capitalists? Any offers? -- Lee Daniel Crocker | "When a man's biggest dreams include extra lee@mport.com (Microport) | dessert, occasional snuggling, and sleeping ...!uunet!mport!lee | until noon on weekends, no one man can 73407.2030@compuserve.com | destroy them." --Marge Simpson
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (12/04/90)
In article <48564@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes: >1) c.s.u. has been too slow of late. I don't think it has been. Someone in news.admin posted a little graph showing number of files over a year or two, and, yes, there were spurts, but that could easily be because some packages (such as SPS, for example) need to be tested to make sure they don't contain any trojans, or at least *build*. Now, frankly, I think Rich has been doing a jim dandy job, for the most part. The relative infrequency generally doesn't bother me (this recent "lapse" is nothing; the only one that got to me was a three or four month absence, at which point I asked him if he was still alive). What *did* get to me, however, was the fact that TRN, recently posted, was unbuildable by at least two people (myself and another poster in this group). I find it very hard to shake the feeling that perhaps rich was rushed to post it because of people, such as Mr. Graham, thinking that c.s.u is the same as alt.sources. One of the nice things about c.s.u is that, generally, one can be certain that the programs posted there will at least compile for the systems rich has access to, and will, generally, behave the way they're supposed to. Try grabbing stuff from alt.sources, for example, to see how well things posted to a moderatorless group work. Oh, and yeah: rich recommended (about a year ago?) that people post to alt.sources for "beta testing" before they submit it to c.s.u. I think that is a very good idea, and wish more people would take it up. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (12/04/90)
In article <21867@well.sf.ca.us> Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes: : This : suggestion was met with outrage amazingly similar to what is currently : being posted: : : "If Jef is so certain that he can do it better, he's welcome : to move over to news.groups and start a vote to become moderator." : -- Brandon Allbery : "Mr. Poskanzer, Shut your yap." -- T. William Wells Here is the entire posting Mr. Poskanzer has just lied about: --- From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: comp.sources.unix Message-ID: <184@twwells.uucp> Date: 18 Nov 88 10:23:11 GMT References: <13092@ncoast.UUCP> <7670@well.UUCP> Reply-To: bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale In article <7670@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <jef@rtsg.ee.lbl.gov> writes: : Gee, you're right, a centralized mechanism doesn't work in a distributed : environment. How CLEVER you are to figure this out! Nevertheless, : sci.med.aids seems to do just fine with its multiplicity of *real* : moderators. I wonder, how can they possibly avoid this "mess" you are : worried about? : : Anyway, I was thinking more along the lines of a primary moderator and : a backup moderator. Both would receive the postings, but the backup would : normally throw them out. However, if the primary disappears for a while, : or perhaps even goes on a real vacation, the backup would be able to take : over with minimal fuss. : : Maybe if you had been thinking about solving the problem instead of about : protecting your position, you would have come up with this idea yourself. Mr. Poskanzer, Shut your yap. We moderate newsgroups out of generosity, spending time and money to so, because we believe that what we are doing is a good thing. You have no business badmouthing one of us because he isn't doing it just the way you'd like. Suggestions are welcome, personal remarks are not. You owe him, and all the other moderators out here, an apology. --- Bill { uunet | decwrl | telesci }!twwells!bill bill@twwells.com
jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) (12/04/90)
In article <18@mport.COM>, lee@mport.COM (Lee Crocker) writes: > As a long time capitalist, I like the idea of paid moderators, though I > admit it may be difficult for the academic-socialist-minded netfolk to > come up with a good way to pay for it. I think you may have it backwards. I think it's the capitalistic spirit that results in moderators being unpaid, i.e., if you can get something valuable for nothing, take it! In my experience, it's been in the academic world that people are paid to perform a service that is of general good to mankind, but no one would otherwise pay to have done. > I think some major commercial site like uunet, apple, sun, etc., would > gain a lot of goodwill by hiring someone to do just that. I don't think any large company would do it for goodwill; remember, these are capitalists ;-) Hmm. Now I'm starting to think... Uunet is a very small, nonprofit entity, but companies like Apple, Sun, Dec, Data General, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, etc. might be interested if it gained them some exposure. Perhaps if every posting contained a message like "Provided as a public service by XXX Corporation", (something like the way companies will pay big money to have a small decal on a racing car). > > How much? Just so we have some figures to talk about, I make the following > offer: For the cost of hardware and $36,000 a year, I'll become a full- > time moderator of one or more groups. I have been a professional > programmer for 10 years, and believe I have the expertise and temperament > required for the job. Me too! Jay Ts, Director Metran Technology uunet!pdn!tscs!metran!jay
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (12/05/90)
Just a gratuitous suggestion: Mr. Salz might be able to mollify some of his unadmirers by posting a monthly or fortnightly summary of the backlog - what is in the queue and which one he is thinking about, which have correspondence out to the submitter. Of course, if I had people talking like that about me, I probably wouldn't care too much if they were mollified. dan herrick herrickd@astro.pc.ab.com
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (12/05/90)
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes:
#I therefore repeat my earlier response to Jef, expanded: if you think you can
#make a multiple moderation scheme work, create a newsgroup using it and show
#me --- and the rest of the Usenet --- that it works. As it stands, trying it
#on .misc or .unix when they're already drawing flames from readers is a recipe
#for completely destroying the groups. Something *proven* to work, on the
#other hand, can be retrofitted once it has been proven.
How about soc.feminism, for instance? They have four moderators.
/JBL
=
Nets: levin@bbn.com | "There were sweetheart roses on Yancey Wilmerding's
or {...}!bbn!levin | bureau that morning. Wide-eyed and distraught, she
POTS: (617)873-3463 | stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor."gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) (12/05/90)
In <61334@bbn.BBN.COM> levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) writes: [in reference to finding a workable multi-moderator system] >How about soc.feminism, for instance? They have four moderators. And soc.religion.islam, which has three moderators.... their system (every third article (in sequence? random? I forget) goes to a given moderator) is slightly different, but it seems to work.... -- Glenn R. Stone (gs26@prism.gatech.edu)
grant@bluemoon.uucp (Grant DeLorean) (12/06/90)
andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) writes: > Umm, I must be stupid, or something. Yes, we are the world's biggest > leaf node. But how can we be responsible for unreplyable mail? (I > won't argue newspaths here). We don't forward. Period. Therefore, > any message that is unreplyable due to att being in the path could > not have been sent in the first place. Call us anti-social if you > like, just don't call us late to dinner. I guess I should go look at the maps before speaking, but why have yourself listed in the maps as connecting to other systems with a full map entry if you don't want mail mapped through you? Since the whole purpose of a map entry is to allow for shortest/best route mapping it seems to defeat the purpose. If you don't want to forward mail to other sites, either don't be fully mapped or don't list the systems whom you don't want to forward mail to in your map entry. There is no need to list everyone you talk to if you won't forward to them... Having just locked horns with a <expletive deleted> from MCI over this very issue (he got mad becuase mail was being routed through him becuase he has/had uunet in his map entry as a DEMAND site) I can't keep quite just now... Grant DeLorean grant@bluemoon ...osu-cis!n8emr!bluemoon!grant ...towers!bluemoon!grant ### So just remember, if a weirdo in a blue suit comes up and offers you some DOS, just say NO! (a message from the President's War on DOS committee) ###
dean@coplex.UUCP (Dean Brooks) (12/07/90)
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >Shut your yap. We moderate newsgroups out of generosity, spending >time and money to so, because we believe that what we are doing is a >good thing. You have no business badmouthing one of us because he >isn't doing it just the way you'd like. Along a differnet note however, when someone volunteers for a position, say the American Red Cross, there are thousands of people also volunteering their time to the organization. If the leader of such an organization doesnt do their job well, the other volunteers have EVERY RIGHT to be upset. They were donating their time to others, and in the end the whole system fell apart. It is generally the same theory with c.s.u. People are spending thousands of hours on software for the public domain, with the intention of having it spread to the general public via c.s.u. When the system breaks down and doesnt work and someone doesnt do the job they volunteered for, people DO have the right to be upset. That person should have either resigned for the good cause of the system, or should continue to do what they volunteered for. The moderators deserve very high respect, as the job of moderation is by no means a simple task, esp. for a sources group. However, in such a situation as the current one, people DO have the right to be upset. The effects are felt in more places than in just your rn/nn/notes newsreader; it hits the authors of the software. -- dean@coplex.UUCP Dean A. Brooks Copper Electronics, Inc. Louisville, Ky UUCP: !uunet!coplex!dean
pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) (12/10/90)
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: [sorry i've been out of town or i would have responded sooner] |pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes: |>1) c.s.u. has been too slow of late. | |I don't think it has been. Someone in news.admin posted a little graph |showing number of files over a year or two, and, yes, there were spurts, but |that could easily be because some packages (such as SPS, for example) need |to be tested to make sure they don't contain any trojans, or at least |*build*. i will admit that i shouldn't have been so definite as to say "too slow" however i don't think your argument for the spurts is reasonable because i don't know that r$ does the checking you suggest. i do know that things come out (such as the recent mlpd) untested because he can't test them. i select lpd because it does have the potential to be a security risk. |Now, frankly, I think Rich has been doing a jim dandy job, for the most |part. The relative infrequency generally doesn't bother me (this recent |"lapse" is nothing; the only one that got to me was a three or four month |absence, at which point I asked him if he was still alive). i also think that r$ does as good a job as can be expected of one person. perhaps the *one* person is the problem. |What *did* get to me, however, was the fact that TRN, recently posted, was |unbuildable by at least two people (myself and another poster in this |group). I find it very hard to shake the feeling that perhaps rich was |rushed to post it because of people, such as Mr. Graham, thinking that c.s.u |is the same as alt.sources. bzzzzt. you lose, but thanks for playing. since you mention me and trn specifically i'll note that trn has been available on my ftp machine since this summer (patch1 since october) and it works just fine for me. i've tried to avoid any of the acrimony that has been flowing over this issue so i'll thank you not to presume to read my mind. i'm well aware of the difference between c.s.u and alt.sources. -- pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms (Bitnet) opinions found above are mine unless marked otherwise.
tr@samadams.princeton.edu (Tom Reingold) (12/10/90)
In article <225@coplex.UUCP> dean@coplex.UUCP (Dean Brooks) writes:
$
$ Along a differnet note however, when someone volunteers for a position,
$ say the American Red Cross, there are thousands of people also volunteering
$ their time to the organization. If the leader of such an organization
$ doesnt do their job well, the other volunteers have EVERY RIGHT to be upset.
$ They were donating their time to others, and in the end the whole system
$ fell apart.
I think this analogy has a hole. The Red Cross provides an essential
service. Lives depend on it. Lives are more important than the flow
of free software. Loss of the latter would not change the world as
much. The world would adapt.
Perhaps the strange thing is that the Red Cross exists. It is
essential, yet it is run by so many volunteers.
--
Tom Reingold
tr@samadams.princeton.edu OR ...!princeton!samadams!tr
"Warning: Do not drive with Auto-Shade in place. Remove
from windshield before starting ignition."