linco@eng.umd.edu (Sam Lin) (12/27/89)
What is popi, the digital darkroom? Where can I get documentation on it? I have looked thru all of the articles, and I can't find a description
shenkin@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin) (12/27/89)
In article <1989Dec27.053537.14990@eng.umd.edu> linco@eng.umd.edu (Sam Lin) writes: > > >What is popi, the digital darkroom? Where can I get documentation on >it? I have looked thru all of the articles, and I can't find a description I had the same question. WHAT THE F*** IS IT? Why can't people put a ten-line description of "what the f*** it is" in front of source postings? (No, the name DOESN'T say it!) For moderated newsgroups, would it not be appropriate for the moderator to encourage or ensure or supply this? -P. ************************f*u*cn*rd*ths*u*cn*gt*a*gd*jb************************** Peter S. Shenkin, Department of Chemistry, Barnard College, New York, NY 10027 (212)854-1418 shenkin@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu(Internet) shenkin@cunixc(Bitnet)
root@tscs.UUCP (System Administrator) (12/29/89)
In article <2567@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu> shenkin@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin) writes: >I had the same question. WHAT THE F*** IS IT? Why can't people put >a ten-line description of "what the f*** it is" in front of source postings? >(No, the name DOESN'T say it!) I agree completely!!! It would be extremely nice to have a "STANDARDIZED" header for source code postings. Usefull information might include: Archive-Name: foobar/doe/2.1/part01 Program-Name: foobar Program-Type: utility, filter, text processing Version: 2.1 Date: January 1, 1990 Author: J. Doe E-Mail: doe@system O/S-Versions: 4.3BSD:SVR2+ Description: Foobar is a filter for removing foobars from text documents. Foobar will subsitute specified foobars and replace them with user supplied strings. Prerequisites: none Just think how nice it would be to be able to print a usefull catalog of all of the public domain software in your possesion or available at your neighborhood archive site. If I had a dollar for everytime I tried to figure out what something was, or what version it was... Multiply this by the thousands of people out there who receive this software, and we're talking serious money here. :-) It seems a shame to spend hundreds of man hours to figure out what the submitter could have included in the five to ten minutes required to supply a header. Do not misunderstand my meaning, I do very much appreceiate the source code that is posted to usenet. People who write software and contribute it freely deserve a great deal of gratitude, but who know better what their software does than the person writing/submitting it. -Steve
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (12/29/89)
In article <2567@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu> shenkin@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin) writes: >In article <1989Dec27.053537.14990@eng.umd.edu> linco@eng.umd.edu (Sam Lin) writes: >> >> >>What is popi, the digital darkroom? Where can I get documentation on >>it? I have looked thru all of the articles, and I can't find a description > >I had the same question. WHAT THE F*** IS IT? Why can't people put >a ten-line description of "what the f*** it is" in front of source postings? >(No, the name DOESN'T say it!) > >For moderated newsgroups, would it not be appropriate for the moderator >to encourage or ensure or supply this? > I agree 1000%!!! The following is in TeX: {\Huge \bf What good is a moderator if he can't even insure that a proper desciption accompanies the files he sends out. } Yes, this is a flame. Doug McDonald
karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (12/29/89)
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu writes: >>What is popi, the digital darkroom? >I had the same question. WHAT THE F*** IS IT? What good is a moderator if he can't even insure that a proper desciption accompanies the files he sends out. Yes, this is a flame. Flames doused. For comp.sources.misc, Brandon does nothing (theoretically) except ensure that all postings in the newsgroup are in fact _source_ (cf. ridiculous flamage about alt.sources non-source postings), and that they have archive-palatable headers. Everyone submitting source _should_ add descriptions, explanations, man pages, etc ad nauseum, but spare Brandon the flames. In fact, spare everyone the flames, and write private email to the submitter asking for a followup with more detail, probably to comp.sources.d. --Karl
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (12/30/89)
In article <484@tscs.UUCP> gerard@tscs.UUCP (Stephen M. Gerard,876-5990,EXT 11,442-6618) writes: | If I had a dollar for everytime I tried to figure out what something was, or | what version it was... Multiply this by the thousands of people out there | who receive this software, and we're talking serious money here. :-) How about a dollar for every time you found out something needed (a) some fancy getopt, (b) some graphics library, (c) some hacked version of curses, or (d) some other thing you didn't have, and which was too much effort to get from an archive or connflicted with other stuff on your system. I like the idea of your Prerequisite field, it would save me from even bothering with some packages which are marginally useful, or allow me to get them up in half the time. -- bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX davidsen@sixhub.uucp ...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen "Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon
brad@optilink.UUCP (Brad Yearwood) (12/31/89)
In article <1989Dec29.150055.15892@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes: > > What good is a moderator if he can't even insure that a proper desciption > accompanies the files he sends out. The "popi" distribution includes a README file. This makes explicit and clear reference to a published book upon whose code the distribution is based. Given a compatible machine (also described in the README), it takes just a few minutes to make the code, read it, and figure out which commands are needed to do visually obnoxious and fun things to a thoughtfully provided picture of Dennis Ritchie. Where's the beef? Should we next hammer the authors and moderator for not providing a machine readable copy of "Beyond Photography - the digital darkroom" formatted for each and every one of our favorite document processors and page description languages? Brad Yearwood {pyramid, tekbspa, pixar}!optilink!brad
shenkin@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin) (01/02/90)
In article <2875@optilink.UUCP> brad@optilink.UUCP (Brad Yearwood) writes: > >The "popi" distribution includes a README file. This makes explicit >and clear reference to a published book upon whose code the distribution >is based. This is insufficient. Do you expect people to go running to the library to look up an obscure reference just to figure out what the program does? The inclusion of such references is laudable, since it allows someone who already knows he's interested to get more background, but the README -- or, better yet, a few prefatory sentences -- should tell us what the program does. >Where's the beef? We shouldn't ask the authors to include the reference, but we should ask them to give us a ten line description of what the program is about. For example, "A program to manipulate contrast levels of bit-mapped images," or whatever it does; I still don't know. I ASSUME the program has something to do with image-processing, but I shouldn't have to go to the library to find out if this guess is correct. -P. ************************f*u*cn*rd*ths*u*cn*gt*a*gd*jb************************** Peter S. Shenkin, Department of Chemistry, Barnard College, New York, NY 10027 (212)854-1418 shenkin@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu(Internet) shenkin@cunixc(Bitnet)
sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon) (01/02/90)
In article <2875@optilink.UUCP> brad@optilink.UUCP (Brad Yearwood) writes: >The "popi" distribution includes a README file. This makes explicit >and clear reference to a published book upon whose code the distribution >is based. But it would be nice to know what type of program "popi" is. The author of the README should have mentioned something like "an editor of pixel groups" or "tools for manipulation of rasterized pixel arrays". Those two are just my guesses from the references to photographs, as I don't know if popi is several programs nor whether it manipulates arbitrary pixels or arrays of fixed-size pixels. Kleenex is famous for facial tissues, Kodak sells cameras, and Jello's competitors also sell gelatin. I don't know what a "popi" is, but there should be a short descriptive term for what it is. -- Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco Data Progress UNIX masts & rigging +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch.
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (01/02/90)
In article <2586@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu> shenkin@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin) writes: | We shouldn't ask the authors to include the reference, but we should ask them to | give us a ten line description of what the program is about. For example, True. If someone takes the trouble to try to doing people a service by posting, s/he should take the time to write a few sentences about the package. This saves time for the not-interested, and insures that the people who would like the package know it's there. I really fight to describe some packages in 64 characters for the archive server and BBS at sixhub. Sometimes I win, and sometimes I get back nasty messages ;-) -- bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX davidsen@sixhub.uucp ...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen "Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon