pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (06/30/88)
In article <3302@s.cc.purdue.edu> rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Rich Kulawiec) writes: >In article <264@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: >>I find it interesting that there has been much talk about the need for >>ridding the net of the evil PC binaries. Yet, something much less useful >>is happening right now, and I haven't seen a peep of complaint! >>Consider: The source code for the Mahjongg tiles. > >Let me get one thing out of the way first, and then I'll address the point >at hand: I'm not entirely pleased with the size of the posting that this >particular (Sun-specific, to the best of my knowlege) game required. On >the other hand, I am not so displeased that I felt it necessary to complain >either to the moderator of the group or the author. I find myself >thinking that this is really the first "huge" posting of this type in >this newsgroup, and I regard it as a single anomalous data point. >If these sorts of postings became the norm in this newsgroup, I might >change my opinion. The thing you are 'getting out of the way' is actually the only thing that deals with what I was trying to say. I'm sorry if my article led you to think along a tangent. My fault! I'll try to make my point again, briefly: people have been worried about volume on the net. Various people over time have taken pot-shots at different groups, suggesting that they should be banned, first because of too much volume, then for other secondary reasons. Usually, they take pot-shots at groups that they don't personally find useful. My point is: the huge postings in comp.sources.games are not being complained about, even though they are stupendously big, and are *very* limited in their generic usefulness. My conclusion: let's stop taking pot-shots at other people's pet useful newsgroups... we all have our own! By the way, the tiles are NOT the first huge posting of this type. We're also seeing a flurry of big X-windows-only stuff. The first N of 18 parts for the latest thing just came through today. I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS. Maybe I should be, but for now, it seems to me that as long as the flow is controlled, the net can handle just about anything. And when the controlled flow gets too large, we need to regionalize the net better. But that is not the argument I'm trying to make here. I'd just like to have everyone look at newsgroups from the point of view of the newsgroups' users, when wondering how useful the groups are. >>But, if we're going to take the easy way out and simply ban X, we've got to >>be consistent and ban ALL 'X', even the brand that affects us personally. > >I don't think this applies in this case; I don't feel that "a big posting >containing a game for a certain Unix machine" and "a big posting containing >a binary executable for a certain microcomputer" belong to the same X. They certainly do belong to the same X if the situation we are dealing with is: "there is too much volume on the net, so let's ban the X groups." >...it does not necessarily follow that any attempts to decrease >the problem posed by X must deal with all X. If the problem is 'volume', we need to deal with all X fairly. Otherwise, there will be great screaming and gnashing of teeth, and for good cause. [rest of article deals with malicious postings and binary vs. source issues. I'm following that up with a new subject line] Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (07/05/88)
Pete Holzmann points out that humongous machine-specific *source* postings are appearing on the net recently, and suggests a comparison with PC binaries. He insists that he's not disapproving of, for instance, the Mahjongg tiles, but it seems to me there would be little grounds for comparison if you couldn't make the case that they, like the PC binaries, are signs of a Nasty Trend. And I think he's got a point. If you're going to post source to thousands of machines, most of which are not Suns, then you should have compile-time switches that let the user build versions for other machines. If that's not possible because an application's too hardware-specific, then don't post it to comp.anything -- set up ftp or mail it to requestors. The "source is source" excuse is no excuse. Source can be anything, trash or gold, suitable or unsuitable. Just because something is expressed in source format doesn't give it religious immunity, especially if it needs 18 parts. It had better be good, and general. Unfortunately, none of this gets binaries off the hook. The problem is twofold -- technical and political. Technically you have the difficulty of assembling working binary versions from the uuenc/shar'd/split-up format we use; the difficulty of getting binaries to work on clone hardware and unanticipated system configurations (common problems); and the overwhelming difficulty getting corrections made when bugs are spotted. (You can't do it yourself, the author has to, and authors get awful busy even when they're being real nice!) The political problem is more profound, and has to do with a consensus of what USENET is. There is a powerful and traditional school of thought that says USENET is a medium for stuff humans can read and understand: text articles, tables, poems, source programs and such-like. Binaries aren't readable. There is also a school of thought (the "programmers rule!" school) that says USENET readers ought to be able to *tinker* with anything they grab from the net. You cannot easily tinker with binaries. Now it turns out that programmers, for all their vaunted concern with the source code, are USERS too just like the rest of us, and almost always use software for which they don't have the source or have never read the source. Life is too short (and the employers' personnel dollar too dear) for everyone to compile their text editor before using it, for instance. You just use it. If someone offers you a small, terrific utility that increases your productivity regardless of how the source code looks, you take it. USENET can be as good at this as the next net if it wants; the overall traffic shouldn't be too big. The problem is size. The hugest stuff just doesn't belong. And, of course, some people have 0.00 use for PC anything. That's why I recommend (a) a 64k limit on binary postings (couting all "part" articles) and (b) a separate bin.* hierarchy so that non-PC sites can filter out the binary stuff in a straightforward way. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: are you kidding?