webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP (06/03/87)
[postnews wouldn't permit cross posting between comp.sources.d and news.group] In article <134@academ.UUCP>, sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) writes: > In article <243@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > >...Moderating a sources group just heightens the illusion that it is > >`safe' to run programs that one doesn't understand. > So, are you are saying that the "first pass" work that the moderator does > to be sure that the code has documentation and a makefile is a waste of > his and our time? This is the main reason I LIKE the moderator arrangement... This is as sensible as having news.groups moderated to catch spelling errors. If the code doesn't have enough documentation to be useful to you, then there is no reason for you to save it. Not every posting on the net was created expressly for your particular situation. If someone wants to moderate sources, that is fine; create a group called comp.sources.mod and run it, but I strongly object to having moderated sources be the only option on the net. (Of course, if there aren't a hundred people on the net that agree, then I would see no reason for creating comp.sources.rwx .) Incidently, months ago, there were two groups, the unmoderated net.sources and the moderated mod.sources, guess which group people preferred to post to and which group was clogged with `moderator unavailable' problems. > >Personally, instead of creating a funny newsgroup, I would rather set > >up a distributed mailing list and then when it grows sufficiently > >petition to have it turned into a newsgroup (the non-standard > >newsgroup approach makes it very difficult to connect all the > >interested parties as well as not giving the uninterested a chance to > >see the error of their ways). > > You seem to be describing the UNIX-SOURCES Internet List. What would your > list do that UNIX-SOURCES does not? According to the information posted in news.lists, unix-sources@brl.arpa is the same thing as comp.sources.misc which is indeed a moderated group. To the best of my knowledge, there is no `correct' place to post sources that doesn't force you to go through a moderator. Heavy reliance on moderators is a bad idea, as I have mentioned elsewhere. The only groups where I find the moderator appropriate are the old mod.mag groups. So far, one person has contacted me about this mailing list; so there now exists a non-moderated distributed sources mailing list of 2 people. When it reaches 100 or so, I will petition to have it converted into an unmoderated sources newsgroup. Currently, there have been no sources posted to this mailing list, so there has been no need to investigate the resources problems of maintaining it. As I have presented elsewhere, such things can be maintained in a distributed manner with minimal resources. If you are interested in unmoderated sources (as opposed to moderated sources), please contact me (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; webber@red.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis!webber). I do not have unlimited resources available for this project, but it is reasonable to expect that by the time the mailing list is too large to be handled as such, it will form a sufficient justification for an unmoderated sources news group. There is no notion that the unmoderated group would carry better sources, except to the extent that you would expect that a programmer that understood the foolishness of restricting sources to a moderated forum would probably be capable of analyzing other problems correctly also. (Incidently, I see no reason to segregate discussions of sources from listings of sources, such a separation dehumanizes C code.) > >I would think one would use tape to archive `junk'. Due to the usual > >random human problems, the current moderator of the sources groups has > >significantly reduced the bandwidth of his group. However, this has > >not impacted quality at all. > "archive" was a bad choice of words on my part. What I really meant to > say was "transient storage". If the bulk of the sources are junk, how > can I justify the transient disk space while the news (and junk) are passing > though? [Fortunately, I don't have this problem at the moment, but I have > had it in the past...] If you are asking about the 2 meg a day flow, either you have the resouces to participate in the net or you don't -- if a sizable portion of the net doesn't have sufficient resouces, then it is time to look into a more distributed approach (as outlined elsewhere). If you are saying that you are so busy that sometimes it takes weeks before you can get around to looking over the sources that you have collected, then I really don't see what the problem is with writing them to tape every couple of days. ----------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis!webber)
merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (06/04/87)
Bob Webber (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu) has volunteered to
maintain an unmoderated sources mailing list. Bob, thank you.
I'm signing up, please add me. The address from you would be
"merlin%hqda-ai@mimsy.umd.edu". I'll be sending you my first
article in about a week, when I get back from vacation.
It is indeed unfortunate that we are now left with no
unmoderated sources groups. Bob has shown us a new view on
getting unmoderated sources back -- go through the new group
creation process.
Send your votes for comp.sources.unmod to Bob (or me, I'll
pass them on). Better yet, sign up for Bob's mailing list. Your
action in support of the Source Liberation Front is more valuable
than your vote for it.
--
David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900
UUCP: *!seismo!sundc!hqda-ai!merlin ARPA: merlin%hqda-ai@seismo.css.govpaddock@auscso.UUCP (5 steve paddock) (06/05/87)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.35.4 of Fri May 29 1987 on auscso (usg-unix-v)
In article <248@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes:
This is as sensible as having news.groups moderated to catch spelling
errors....
and goes on to make an excellent defence of an unmoderated sources
group. I have asked to be included in his unmoderated mailing list
and I hope others will join us. I'd like to see net.sources or
equivalent back by next week.
--
Steve Paddock ut-sally!ut-ngp!auscso!paddockgnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (06/05/87)
Net.sources is already there. You didn't delete it when the backbone
told you to, did you? 70% of the net didn't, and ihnp4 among many
other sites is still carrying it. All it needs is for people to
post to it instead of complaining about its absence.
--
Copyright 1987 John Gilmore; you may redistribute only if your recipients may.
(This is an effort to bend Stargate to work with Usenet, not against it.)
{sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4,ucbvax}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@ingres.berkeley.eduwoods@hao.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) (06/05/87)
In article <2266@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >Net.sources is already there. You didn't delete it when the backbone >told you to, did you? 70% of the net didn't, and ihnp4 among many >other sites is still carrying it. All it needs is for people to >post to it instead of complaining about its absence. This is a very good point. There is nothing to stop anyone on the net from carrying whatever groups they want. On the other hand, there is nothing to force anyone, including the backbone, to carry any particular group either. If you are unhappy with the newsgroup structure that most of the backbone has decided to carry, nothing is stopping you from carrying whatever groups you want using non-backbone feeds. Certainly a much more constructive thing to do than the constant bitching I keep reading about what the backbone is doing. --Greg -- UUCP: {hplabs, seismo, nbires, noao}!hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA INTERNET: woods@hao.ucar.edu
mg@cidam.me.rmit.oz (Mike A. Gigante) (06/06/87)
In my opinion, all this talk of the need for non-moderated sources group
is ridiculous. The moderator make no value judgements on the postings, justs
posts the stuff out. He *DOES* however filter out all the non-sources postings
that used to clog net.sources.
How many messages in net.sources were either non-sources and/or flames for
non-sources?
It's about time this ridiculous discussion stopped.
Mike Gigante RMIT, Australia {seismo,hplabs,ukc}!munnari!cidam.oz!mgguest@bigtuna.UUCP (06/06/87)
In article <718@hao.UCAR.EDU> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >In article <2266@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >>Net.sources is already there. You didn't delete it when the backbone >>told you to, did you? 70% of the net didn't, and ihnp4 among many >>other sites is still carrying it. All it needs is for people to >>post to it instead of complaining about its absence. > > This is a very good point. There is nothing to stop anyone on the net >from carrying whatever groups they want. On the other hand, there is >nothing to force anyone, including the backbone, to carry any particular >group either. If you are unhappy with the newsgroup structure that most of >the backbone has decided to carry, nothing is stopping you from carrying >whatever groups you want using non-backbone feeds. Certainly a much more >constructive thing to do than the constant bitching I keep reading about >what the backbone is doing. > Why bother with all this crap!? Not long ago we still had a reasonable, free exchange newsgroup for sources. Then the creeps that have been unilaterally "reforming" the net into their own image and likeness decided that since they had been getting away with murder already, that it was time to really test their power and see if they could subvert the sources newsgroups also by forcing moderation on them. Why mess with rebuilding a new network when the old one still works? Not net.sources, that's mostly dead. Many sites have removed it I'm sure. comp.sources.misc should not be moderated. Few people want it to be and it doesn't need to be. Let the moderation jerks do what they like. We can just start posting sources to comp.sources.misc directly. Then the group will still be moderated, it's just that everyone will be a moderator. Anyway, when you run postnews just add a line like the following to the article header and rnews will do the rest: Approved: by the majority for unmoderated newsgroups What follows the Approved: part can be anything. Works like a charm. So don't hassle with the moderation bozos just side-step them.
wohler@sri-spam.UUCP (06/07/87)
folks, some of us are glad that all of the sources groups are moderated. it was getting so that net.sources was a perfect waste of time. it wasn't anything more than comp.sources.d. now, we can read the discussions, announcements, and so on, in comp.sources.d. then, when we want to get our sources, we move over to the moderated sources groups where the subject line and the initial contents of the article will really tell us what the sources are. moderated groups help eliminate duplication, noise, and provide for the archival of sources. why is it such a big deal that your sources go through a moderator? whether your sources take a couple days to a couple of weeks to get out to the net can't be that much of a hardship. if you are still interested in the noise that net.sources provides, please subscribe to the mailing list unix-sources. requests can be sent to unix-sources-request@brl.arpa. other mailing lists can be found in the newsgroup news.announce.newusers. our moderators save us a lot of reading time; please leave our moderated groups alone. --bw
jim@b-mrda.UUCP (06/08/87)
I would also like to be added to the mailing list. jim sadler 206-237-0961 hpubvwa!b-mrda!jim P.O. Box 3707 ms 94-26 Seattle, Wa. USA 98124 Any opinions expressed are mine and mine only and not that of my employer. Also added in whatever else should be said at this point.
gnu@hoptoad.UUCP (06/08/87)
In article <677@cidam.me.rmit.oz>, mg@cidam.me.rmit.oz (Mike A. Gigante) writes: > In my opinion, all this talk of the need for non-moderated sources group > is ridiculous... > It's about time this ridiculous discussion stopped. It's a good thing he's not the moderator of comp.sources.d, or we wouldn't be allowed to complain about the current sorry state of the sources groups. -- Copyright 1987 John Gilmore; you may redistribute only if your recipients may. (This is an effort to bend Stargate to work with Usenet, not against it.) {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4,ucbvax}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@ingres.berkeley.edu
sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) (06/08/87)
In article <248@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >[postnews wouldn't permit cross posting between comp.sources.d and news.group] > >In article <134@academ.UUCP>, sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) writes: >> In article <243@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >> >...Moderating a sources group just heightens the illusion that it is >> >`safe' to run programs that one doesn't understand. >> So, are you are saying that the "first pass" work that the moderator does >> to be sure that the code has documentation and a makefile is a waste of >> his and our time? This is the main reason I LIKE the moderator arrangement... > >This is as sensible as having news.groups moderated to catch spelling errors. >If the code doesn't have enough documentation to be useful to you, then >there is no reason for you to save it. Not every posting on the net >was created expressly for your particular situation. Hello? You mean you like all the extra work of creating your own makefile and manual page AND doing the first pass yourself? Fine. You obviously have loads of spare time on your hands. Must be nice. By the way, your analogy makes no sense. Lots of people make speeling errors (see!), but you can still understand the jist of it. Some programs are not so easily parsed. Perhaps you are adept at reading someone else's code, but then again you may have to look at alot of student labs and have developed that talent. I have not. Documentation helps me. Also, I don't believe every posting on the net was made to suit my situation. I never implied this. To think otherwise it a grossly inaccurate interpretation of my previous postings. I have hear that Texans are hard to understand, but I thought we still write in the same language. >If someone wants to moderate sources, that is fine; create a group called >comp.sources.mod and run it, but I strongly object to having moderated >sources be the only option on the net. I do not object to an un-moderated list. I think that is a wonderful ideal. (I spelled it that way on purpose.) Unfortunately, past experience indicates that an un-moderated sources list contains many, MANY non-sources postings. A moderated list does not. If the unmoderated sources group can be JUST sources, I will support it 110%! >> >> You seem to be describing the UNIX-SOURCES Internet List. What would your >> list do that UNIX-SOURCES does not? > >According to the information posted in news.lists, unix-sources@brl.arpa >is the same thing as comp.sources.misc which is indeed a moderated group. Well, actually the correct list is the so-called "List of Lists" maintained by the NIC at SRI (ftp the files netinfo:interest-groups* from sri-nic.arpa). It still sez that it gateways net.sources. I guess they need to update this to whatever it really gateways. >There is no notion that the unmoderated group would carry >better sources, except to the extent that you would expect that a >programmer that understood the foolishness of restricting sources to >a moderated forum would probably be capable of analyzing other >problems correctly also. (Incidently, I see no reason to segregate discussions >of sources from listings of sources, such a separation dehumanizes C code.) > Hmm. Well, there seems to be a few people that disagree with the discussion aspect. I am one, but we seem to disagree on may issues surrounding this. I think it might be a tad bit egotistical to say that other programmers that don't agree with you about moderated sources vs. unmoderated sources are incapable of analyzing other problems. I also find it interesting that discussion in the sources group somehow "humanizes" C-code. I'd like to hear more on that :-). > > >----------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis!webber) -- Stan uucp:{killer,rice,hoptoad}!academ!sob Opinions expressed here Olan domain:sob@rice.edu are ONLY mine & Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)790-9004 noone else's.
nobody@scubed.UUCP (06/08/87)
In article <49@bigtuna.UUCP> guest@bigtuna.UUCP writes: >In article <718@hao.UCAR.EDU> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >>In article <2266@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >>>Net.sources is already there. ... >> This is a very good point. ... > >Why bother with all this crap!? > Right arm bro' ... hasn't anyone noticed that the moderated groups suck? The measure of the truth and beauty of this sort of network communication is the sum total *ALL* commmunication flowing through it. Good, bad, nonsensical and flame. Well that's this dweeb's opionion anyway.
jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) (06/08/87)
In article <2266@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >Net.sources is already there. You didn't delete it when the backbone >told you to, did you? 70% of the net didn't, and ihnp4 among many >other sites is still carrying it. All it needs is for people to >post to it instead of complaining about its absence. I didn't delete it, my system administrator did! Please, make this an OFFICIAL group, so that I can receive it and post to it!!!! . . . This silliness for 2.11 inews .
jpn@teddy.UUCP (06/08/87)
>In my opinion, all this talk of the need for non-moderated sources group >is ridiculous. It is NOT ridiculous. Oh, I am all in favor of moderation, WHEN IT WORKS. Hell, I was the one who first suggested and implemented the moderated source group mod.sources! Let's face it, though. Moderation has NOT WORKED OUT. It is difficult to get sources to a moderator (mail is NOT that reliable), and the delay caused by a moderator is just a pain in the A**. comp.sources.unix (formerly mod.sources) has had major blackouts (months at a time). These were not due to a lack of submissions, either. The current moderator (Rich Salz) is off the net - I don't know when he will be back. I'm sure that there are good excuses: but it points out the flaws in a (volunteer) moderated system. The new comp.source.misc moderator, Brandon Allbery, has not had any of these problems, yet. But when I hear that he is going to start trying out all sources before submitting them, well, it is the same old problem starting up again. It is NOT just a matter of filtering out non-source submissions. Also, a single source submission just took a week to be posted! (fortune). I keep hearing about sources that are "going to be posted" - and I don't SEE them till months later! Oh, a moderated sources group is worthwhile for production-quality submissions that don't suffer from month-long publishing delays: but I don't think that covers all the useful source code I have recieved from the net! I think that a non-moderated source newsgroup is appropriate because 1. Mailing to the moderater is not required, and 2. The Moderator himself is not required (i.e. no blackouts when he goes on vacation, or has a heavy workload). Let's hear it for comp.sources.unmod!
alden@osupyr.UUCP (06/08/87)
>Why bother with all this crap!? > >Not long ago we still had a reasonable, free exchange newsgroup for sources. > >Then the creeps that have been unilaterally "reforming" the net into >their own image and likeness decided that since they had been getting >away with murder already, that it was time to really test their power >and see if they could subvert the sources newsgroups also by forcing >moderation on them. > >Why mess with rebuilding a new network when the old one still works? >Not net.sources, that's mostly dead. Many sites have removed it I'm sure. > >comp.sources.misc should not be moderated. Few people want it to be >and it doesn't need to be. > <flame on> Ok, I've put up with imbecile's like this guy long enough. If you people would pay attention to the announcements about new newsgroups you would realize that the ONLY moderation of comp.sources.misc is to redirect any discussions, bugs, etc... to their apropriate newsgroups. If you post SOURCES to comp.sources.misc, then they will appear there. I'm really amazed at the number of people who think that the "net gods" are out to get them. Also, is this "person" from bigtuna so afraid to admit who they are that they must use a guest account? Seems pretty childish to me. <flame off> ...Dave Alden ...The Ohio State University ...alden@osupyr ==or== alden%osupyr@cbosgd
jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) (06/09/87)
>Ok, I've put up with imbecile's like this guy long enough. If you people >would pay attention to the announcements about new newsgroups you would >realize that the ONLY moderation of comp.sources.misc is to redirect any >discussions, bugs, etc... to their apropriate newsgroups. This is not true. The new moderator stated his intention to "verify" all submitted sources that were appropriate for the machines he had access to! This caused me to re-think the wiseness of the decision to moderate comp.source.misc... Also, WHERE ARE THE SOURCES? comp.sources.unix is off the air, comp.sources.misc hasn't posted much except some IBM/PC binaries. The only active source news group seems to be comp.sources.games! SOMETHING in wrong - either the submissions are not getting to the moderators, or the moderators are not posting - or perhaps everyone is still using net.sources!
joe@auspyr.UUCP (06/10/87)
in article <362@osupyr.UUCP>, alden@osupyr.UUCP (Dave Alden) says: > > ...If you post SOURCES to comp.sources.misc, then they will appear there. If the only purpose of moderated news groups is to be sure that things go in the proper place, then where are they!? Is no-one sending stuff out? BUT NO... It's getting lost in mailers, trashed by moderators, etc... > I'm really amazed at the number of people who think that the "net gods" > are out to get them. It's not the net gods, it's the mailers, the delays, and the censorship! -- "No matter Joe Angelo, Sr. Sys. Engineer @ Austec, Inc., San Jose, CA. where you go, ARPA: aussjo!joe@lll-tis-b.arpa PHONE: [408] 279-5533 there you UUCP: {sdencore,cbosgd,amdahl,ptsfa,dana}!aussjo!joe are ..." UUCP: {styx,imagen,dlb,jmr,sci,altnet}!auspyr!joe
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (06/10/87)
As quoted from <390@hqda-ai.UUCP> by merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes): +--------------- | It is indeed unfortunate that we are now left with no | unmoderated sources groups. Bob has shown us a new view on | getting unmoderated sources back -- go through the new group | creation process. | | Send your votes for comp.sources.unmod to Bob (or me, I'll | pass them on). Better yet, sign up for Bob's mailing list. Your | action in support of the Source Liberation Front is more valuable | than your vote for it. +--------------- Were I to unmoderate comp.sources.misc right now, the ensuing flamage would be more voluminous that the flamage about it being moderated. I *do* remember the constant flames about garbage in net.sources, guys! The ensuing flames would also be more polite. (Cf. <48@bigtuna.UUCP>.) People, we (meaning the moderators and the backbone) can't please everyone. An unmoderated sources newsgroup will be 90% discussion & flames, same as net.sources was for the entire time that I subscribed to it (3 years now). And the flames will, as in the case of net.sources, be about how there is so much noise in the newsgroup and how *it should be moderated* to get rid of the noise. (Educate the users? C'mon! Net.sources tried to educate the users for *how* *long*?) -- BTW -- I have stopped testing stuff to comp.sources.misc, since getting stuff out FAST is more important than getting it out RIGHT in this case. Don't bother to flame me about it; I'm not listening, as it's d*mned certain that some vocal minority will yell no matter what is done with comp.sources.misc, including if it is unmoderated. ++Brandon -- Copyright (C) 1987 Brandon S. Allbery. Redistribution permitted only if the redistributor permits further redistribution. ---- Moderator for comp.sources.misc ---- Brandon S. Allbery {decvax,cbosgd}!cwruecmp!ncoast!allbery aXcess Company {ames,mit-eddie,talcott}!necntc!ncoast!allbery 6615 Center St. #A1-105 necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.HARVARD.EDU Mentor, OH 44060-4101 +01 216 974 9210 (also eddie.MIT.EDU)
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP (06/10/87)
In article <362@osupyr.UUCP>, alden@osupyr.UUCP (Dave Alden) writes: > <flame on> TRANSLATION: person about to stick foot in mouth. > > Ok, I've put up with imbecile's like this guy long enough. If you people > would pay attention to the announcements about new newsgroups you would > realize that the ONLY moderation of comp.sources.misc is to redirect any > discussions, bugs, etc... to their apropriate newsgroups. If you post > SOURCES to comp.sources.misc, then they will appear there. I'm really WRONG. There has been alot of confusion about what is going on on comp.sources.misc. Fortunately, the moderator recently posted a message to clear up the confusion. He CLEARLY says that any multifile postings of generic unix sources will be redirected to comp.sources.unix. He wants VMS code and binaries for MS-DOS. Anything that he can rationalize sending to another sources group (regardless of policies there), he will forward. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I know you won't believe this. Please read comp.sources.misc and look for the policy posting from the moderator of that group, ncoast!allbery. Incidently, he welcomes comments that aren't flames. If anyone can figure out a way not to flame at him, be my guest. > amazed at the number of people who think that the "net gods" are out to > get them. Also, is this "person" from bigtuna so afraid to admit who > they are that they must use a guest account? Seems pretty childish to > me. Since the net has recently been burned by `net god' policies, I can understand a certain amount of paranoia developing, but ultimately we are going to have to get back to working together. Considering how few guest accounts there are these days, I certainly would encourage people not to risk them by using them as anonymous posting sites. > <flame off> I guess this means, foot out. Anyway, you really didn't do anything wrong. You just thought the people running the net were doing something reasonable. An easy mistake to make (they made it too). Some of them were even surprised to hear how the groups were being handled (they are no more monolithic than the net is). Also, they too welcome comments. However, they are probably at USENIX this week. Incidently, recent experiences with various groups that are semi-official on the net indicate that flames posted to news groups go in one ear and out the other. They figure if you really wanted to talk you would send them mail. If you can't figure out how to reach them, scan postings over in the news subgroups or consult your local systems administrators. ----- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP (06/10/87)
In article <142@academ.UUCP>, sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) writes: > In article <248@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > >[postnews wouldn't permit cross posting between comp.sources.d and news.group] > >... > >This is as sensible as having news.groups moderated to catch spelling errors. > >If the code doesn't have enough documentation to be useful to you, then > >there is no reason for you to save it. Not every posting on the net > >was created expressly for your particular situation. > > Hello? You mean you like all the extra work of creating your own makefile > and manual page AND doing the first pass yourself? Fine. You obviously have > loads of spare time on your hands. Must be nice. Actually, the days here are only 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4.091 seconds also. Support the space program. Someday you may be able to go to a decent planet with a 25 hour day. Sources are volunteered as is. They are accepted as wanted. I put in as much effort as the source seems worth and if it seems to require more effort than it is worth, I don't bother with it. This is quite tautological. Doubtless, some sources are posted and never used by anyone on the net. However, I certainly wouldn't want to look at a source and try and guess how many people on the net would want to devote enough effort to get something out of it. I will settle for deciding how much effort I want to spend and let others decide how much they want to spend. I think that it is hard enough to write a source that it is not unreasonable to distribute it throughout the news system. Certainly most people spend more time composing their sources than composing their news postings (kilobyte per kilobyte). > By the way, your analogy makes no sense. Lots of people make speeling errors > (see!), but you can still understand the jist of it. Some programs are not > so easily parsed. Perhaps you are adept at reading someone else's code, but > then again you may have to look at alot of student labs and have developed > that talent. I have not. Documentation helps me. Yes I have read tons of student code. One does develope a knack for separating wheat from the shaft (although there are of course some who disagree with whether or not I can actually do this). Anyway, there are lies, damn lies, and documentation. However, if you can't or don't want to do read such sources, that's fine by me. Like I said, not all groups are for everyone. > Also, I don't believe every posting on the net was made to suit my situation. > I never implied this. To think otherwise it a grossly inaccurate > interpretation of my previous postings. I have hear that Texans are hard > to understand, but I thought we still write in the same language. Glad to hear you don't begrudge me an unmoderated sources group. > >If someone wants to moderate sources, that is fine; create a group called > >comp.sources.mod and run it, but I strongly object to having moderated > >sources be the only option on the net. > > I do not object to an un-moderated list. I think that is a wonderful ideal. > (I spelled it that way on purpose.) Unfortunately, past experience > indicates that an un-moderated sources list contains many, MANY non-sources > postings. A moderated list does not. If the unmoderated sources group > can be JUST sources, I will support it 110%! Why do you care what appears on the list? Perhaps you are obsessed with the word sources. It seems to me that an unmoderated group contains whatever people choose to post to it. If people who post stuff that is inappropriate are ignored on the list and responded to by mail, the stuff goes away. By far, most of the non-source on the old list was replies. Refusing to allow people to reply to a sources message would easily clean this up. (and it would certainly be more useful than not letting people crosspost to comp.sources.d because it is a sources group). > Well, actually the correct list is the so-called "List of Lists" maintained > by the NIC at SRI (ftp the files netinfo:interest-groups* from sri-nic.arpa). Somehow I think that news.lists is more relevant to Usenet people. On what basis would you say the other is more `correct'? > It still sez that it gateways net.sources. I guess they need to update > this to whatever it really gateways. Yeah. So much for `correct'. > >There is no notion that the unmoderated group would carry > >better sources, except to the extent that you would expect that a > >programmer that understood the foolishness of restricting sources to > >a moderated forum would probably be capable of analyzing other > >problems correctly also. (Incidently, I see no reason to segregate discussions > >of sources from listings of sources, such a separation dehumanizes C code.) > > > Hmm. Well, there seems to be a few people that disagree with the discussion > aspect. I am one, but we seem to disagree on may issues surrounding this. > I think it might be a tad bit egotistical to say that other programmers that > don't agree with you about moderated sources vs. unmoderated sources are > incapable of analyzing other problems. I also find it interesting that Well, anyone that posts on Usenet after reading the cost information is not exactly non-egotistical. The philosophy of a programmer is often reflected in the strategies chosen for implementing various tasks. Of course, the philosophy will have little to do with the skill with which the strategy is implemented, but it may have something to do with how you perceive the usefulness of what was done. > discussion in the sources group somehow "humanizes" C-code. I'd like to > hear more on that :-). I guess the smile means you really wouldn't. I can live without discussion in the sources group (particularly if it gets us unmoderated sources quicker), but I am not offended by it. However, I really don't see a clear distinction between source and non-source. Is Lisp code source to someone that does not have a Lisp interpreter? Is an English language algorithm description only a source if everyone has a natural language interpretor hooked up to a mechanical theorem prover? If I place this message in a printf (as I have done on other occasions), does it magically become a source? How about if I write a Doctor program and make this message what it says in response to the question `Should I vote for unmoderated sources?'. Why do so many people object to binaries on sources groups? Is it because they can't be read by most humans any more? If I cast a question in the predicate calculus syntax of Prolog, does it become a source? Wouldn't you like to see an unmoderated sources group just to see someone do half the things mentioned above? As for how C source could be humanized, consider the Literate Programming concept being pushed these days by Donald Knuth. [An easy introduction is in Communications of the ACM, May and June 1986, Programming Pearls Column of Jon Bentley.] ----- (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
kre@munnari.UUCP (06/10/87)
In article <4075@teddy.UUCP>, jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes: > Also, WHERE ARE THE SOURCES? > comp.sources.misc hasn't posted much except some IBM/PC binaries. Rember that comp.sources.misc replaces net.sources .. without the noise. net.sources was lucky to carry more than one real source posting a week, why should you expect comp.sources.misc to get much more? kre
joe@auspyr.UUCP (06/11/87)
I was thinking (for once), if the majority of the Backbone Administrators
really feel that net.sources was/is a waste of resources, then they do indeed
have every right to create moderated news groups providing REAL costs were
at issue. [ But on the same hand, thier are alot of other *realitively* useless
news groups around... ]
Ofcourse, I could have just given *them* a good defense mechanism.
Now, a mailing list isn't really going to help much either since SOMEONE is
going to have to distribute 50 zillion copies of SOMETHING via the mail.
Chances are that the mail will go via a backbone site! I think backbones
would be better off forwarding batched/compressed news instead of
unbatched (one per recipient) articles of mail...
What I'd like to see is net.sources brang back... someone can send out a
newgroup message. (Heck, I can for that matter.) Administrators that
don't want it can just LOCALLY remove it. I see no reason why EVERYONE
must suffer because a spine{less,full} backbone get tired of the
disorganization of net.sources. Hey, if I could deal with it....
>"OK! The Joke is over! We was just joshing... net.sources crossed the road
>to get to the otherside! ..."
> - Someone who made a mistake
Don't ya just wish?
<geez>
--
"No matter Joe Angelo, Sr. Sys. Engineer @ Austec, Inc., San Jose, CA.
where you go, ARPA: aussjo!joe@lll-tis-b.arpa PHONE: [408] 279-5533
there you UUCP: {sdencore,cbosgd,amdahl,ptsfa,dana}!aussjo!joe
are ..." UUCP: {styx,imagen,necntc,dlb,jmr,sci,altnet}!auspyr!joejdia@osiris.UUCP (06/11/87)
Hey!
Get me on his too could'ya?
Josh Diamond
(301)-955-8833
Johns Hopkins Horsepistol
--
A message from WOWBAGGER THE INFINITELY PROLONGED
"You're a jerk Dent. A complete kneebiter..."
Reachable via UUCP: ...decvax!decuac!aplcen!osiris!jdia
...allegra!mimsy!aplcen!osiris!jdiasob@academ.UUCP (06/13/87)
In article <256@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >In article <142@academ.UUCP>, sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) writes: >> I do not object to an un-moderated list. I think that is a wonderful ideal. >> (I spelled it that way on purpose.) Unfortunately, past experience >> indicates that an un-moderated sources list contains many, MANY non-sources >> postings. A moderated list does not. If the unmoderated sources group >> can be JUST sources, I will support it 110%! > >Why do you care what appears on the list? Perhaps you are obsessed with >the word sources. I do think that a group named "comp.sources" should contain source code for computers...I guess that is obsessive. Pity me. :-) As for the mailing list, people other than myself have commented that doing mass mailings of large source files is a bigger waste of resources than a "sources" newsgroup full of non-source postings. Since they have already explained the rational for this, I will not bother to repeat it. >It seems to me that an unmoderated group contains whatever >people choose to post to it. If people who post stuff that is inappropriate >are ignored on the list and responded to by mail, the stuff goes away. History does not bear this out with respect to "net.sources". The stuff (non-source) postings did not go away. >By far, most of the non-source on the old list was replies. Refusing >to allow people to reply to a sources message would easily clean this up. >(and it would certainly be more useful than not letting people crosspost >to comp.sources.d because it is a sources group). This strikes me a bug on the news software... This is fixable. I suppose you have already dropped a line to rick@seismo.css.gov about this bug. If not, you should. >> Well, actually the correct list is the so-called "List of Lists" maintained >> by the NIC at SRI (ftp the files netinfo:interest-groups* from sri-nic.arpa). >Somehow I think that news.lists is more relevant to Usenet people. On >what basis would you say the other is more `correct'? UNIX-SOURCES is an INTERNET list, not a news group. The authoratative list for INTERNET lists is the LIST of LIST. With more usage of NNTP, the structure of this may change. (see other articles for some of the current problems) >> I think it might be a tad bit egotistical to say that other programmers that >> don't agree with you about moderated sources vs. unmoderated sources are >> incapable of analyzing other problems. I also find it interesting that >Well, anyone that posts on Usenet after reading the cost information >is not exactly non-egotistical. The philosophy of a programmer is >often reflected in the strategies chosen for implementing various tasks. >Of course, the philosophy will have little to do with the skill with which >the strategy is implemented, but it may have something to do with how you >perceive the usefulness of what was done. I find this ego<->"programming philosophy" link interesting. I agree that some programmers have aspects of ego in the "philosophy". My personal feeling is that the better programmers are those that don't let ego get in the way of producing better code which may be derived from collaboration with others. To that end, I think sources groups are great. Or, perhaps we should have a "developmental" sources group. This was my personal ideal of what net.sources should have been. Someone posts sources and requests people to look at them and feed back [by mail, or in a sources discussion group]. This is quite a different function from comp.sources.unix which [in my opinion] is for mature sources. >> discussion in the sources group somehow "humanizes" C-code. I'd like to >> hear more on that :-). > >I guess the smile means you really wouldn't. Not true. I just thought the anthropromorphic reference was humorous. >----- (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber) -- Stan uucp:{killer,rice,hoptoad}!academ!sob Opinions expressed here Olan domain:sob@rice.edu are ONLY mine & Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)790-9004 noone else's.
barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (Bruce G Barnett) (06/16/87)
Here is a radical (?) idea. Whenever non-sources gets posted to the new unmoderated comp.sources.misc - someone Cancels the article? If this is done enough times, eventually people will get the message. -- Bruce G. Barnett (barnett@ge-crd.ARPA) (barnett@steinmetz.UUCP) -- "The difference between a Buddha and an ordinary man is that one knows the difference and the other does not."
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (06/17/87)
In <1789@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP> barnett@ge-crd.arpa (Bruce G Barnett) writes: > Whenever non-sources gets posted to the new unmoderated comp.sources.misc - > someone Cancels the article? If this is done enough times, eventually > people will get the message. I seem to remember something like this going on a while ago -- somebody took it upon themselves to send out cancel messages for articles that s/he thought were innapropriate (don't remember the details; was it net.sources?) Once people figured out what was going on, the uproar was loud and angry. Preventing postings is one thing, inflicting random carnage to already posted stuff (remember the article trasher?) is another thing altogether. Besides, it's not likely that the poster of a message which later gets cancled will even realize it. I rarely go back and look at stuff I've posted (after reading it the first time to make sure it came out as I anticipated). If somebody cancled this article for example, it would take a few days for the cmsg to get back here and I'd probably never know it happened at all. Not much educational value in that. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (06/23/87)
In article <1789@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP>, barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (Bruce G Barnett) writes: > Here is a radical (?) idea. Whenever non-sources gets posted to the > new unmoderated comp.sources.misc - someone Cancels the article? If > this is done enough times, eventually people will get the message. I think this is a very bad idea. Newgroup/rmgroup wars are bad enough, but an intelligent and careful news admin can usually avoid getting burnt too badly. If we get post/cancel wars going there won't be much left of usenet! The only case I can see where it is acceptable for someone other than the poster to cancel an article is that I would find it reasonable for a moderated group moderator to cancel an article with a faked Approved: header in that group (cf. "richard"). der Mouse (mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp)