kroger@scarecrow.cognet.ucla.edu (James Kroger) (03/06/91)
I know this is probably common knowledge to everyone but me, but... There are several "sources" newsgroups, for unix, Xwindows, etc., where people post various programs to do things in unix, X, etc. Question: how is one supposed to know what these programs do? The comments at the beginning always say something like "this is version 7 of the fourth release of binshellarchthing with modifications to the processthing to be compatible with the otherthing. Cut here." I never have any idea what the program is supposed to do. Why don't people say "this program does x y z...?"
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (03/07/91)
In article <817@mara.cognet.ucla.edu>, kroger@scarecrow.cognet.ucla.edu (James Kroger) writes: |> Question: how is one supposed to know what these programs do? |> The comments at the beginning always say something like |> "this is version 7 of the fourth release of binshellarchthing |> with modifications to the processthing to be compatible with the |> otherthing. Cut here." First of all, the title and archive name of packages usually gives a pretty good idea of what the packages do. Second, I just made a quick scan through the unexpired source postings in several different newsgroups (comp.sources.games, comp.sources.misc, comp.sources.unix, and comp.sources.x) and pretty much all of them do what you ask here. Make sure you look at the *first posting* in a multi-part posting when looking for the package description. Remember that news often arrives out of order. And, if you do stumble upon a package with no introduction, then find the README file and read it. If you don't want to unpack just to read the README file, then search for the string README in each of the shars (it's usually in the first one, but sometimes isn't) until you find it. As for the reason why there are a few packages that get posted without introductions, the answer is, "Because sometimes people forget to include an introduction." Another possible answer is that you're looking at patches to previously released software; there is no reason to include a long description in a patch; if you want to know what the original package did, then go to the archives and retrieve the original package. -- Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8085 Home: 617-782-0710
emv@ox.com (Ed Vielmetti) (03/07/91)
In article <817@mara.cognet.ucla.edu> kroger@scarecrow.cognet.ucla.edu (James Kroger) writes:
Question: how is one supposed to know what these programs do?
The comments at the beginning always say something like
"this is version 7 of the fourth release of binshellarchthing
with modifications to the processthing to be compatible with the
otherthing. Cut here."
I never have any idea what the program is supposed to do. Why don't people
say "this program does x y z...?"
It's not always obvious to the author of the program how to describe
what it does to other people in prose that they are likely to
understand. Code-writing skills and blurb-writing skills do not
necessarily go together. This can be especially true of the various
esoteric bits of software that get flung around the net to solve very
particular problems, the answer of course is "read the source".
I would encourage people who write programs that make shar bundles to
allow an option that would put the README file (or its moral
equivalent) in the front part of the first shar bundle so that there's
more text to look at. Unfortunately some don't, and you just have to
look at the package a little more closely to determine what's inside.
comp.archives attempts to post things which are roughly 24 lines long
and express in reasonable detail what programs are supposed to do.
I'll occasionally put in something more like a "review" than an
"announcement" since users often have a clearer picture of what's
going on than authors. You might want to add that to your reading
list when looking for stuff.
--
Msen Edward Vielmetti
/|--- moderator, comp.archives
emv@msen.com