webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) (05/13/87)
In article <125@academ.UUCP>, sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) writes: > In article <192@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes: > > > >It is exactly the realization that we were loosing net.sources (according to > >the note of the moderator of the new comp.sources.d) that made me feel ^^ should have been `ON the new ...' > >things had just gotten out of hand. > > comp.sources.d is not moderated to my knowledge. comp.sources.unix and > comp.sources.misc are. comp.sources.wanted is not. Please get the information > right! Sigh, more a matter of getting the typing right. My mistake. Even proof-reading my own copy, I tend to see what I meant instead of what I actually typed. (Incidently, also apologies for typing `loosing' instead of `losing', as was kindly pointed out to me in a mail message). > [On code sent via mod.sources vs. net.sources] > >I always figured it was a matter of choosing to share with people who > >were capable of judging code for themselves versus sharing with people > >who had to rely on a moderator. Also, doubtless many people would be > >puzzled as to what service the moderator was supplying that was worth > >the inconvenience he so often causes. > > > > I don't know what kind of time you have to evaulate sources sent over > the net. You must have much more than I do. I have megabytes of net.sources > that are waiting for spare time to be evaulated. Generally, I try the > mod.sources stuff first and most of the time (>90%) it works. I cannot > say that about net.sources stuff. It hardly matters that 90%+ of the mod.sources code works (although I doubt that that is true considering how little `working code' I have seen over the years). More than 90% of the source that moves across the net is useless or easily cons'd up should a need arise. The few programs that are actually worth storing are worth spending enough time with so that they can be fixed/extended as things change. The only programs that don't need to be changed are those that don't need to be used. > Also, you say nothing about the mod.sources archive services. I guess that > is an unimportant service offered by the moderator. It is certainly an important service. However, it has nothing to do with whether or not a group is moderated. The net is in desparate need of archivers. Near as I can tell, the first hundred messages in news.stargate, the discussion of its creation, and various other messages posted by the people currently messing up stargate that explained their policies have been lost to the net forever. --------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!topaz!webber)
usenet@soma.bcm.tmc.edu (USENET maintenance) (05/19/87)
In article <229@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes: >It hardly matters that 90%+ of the mod.sources code works (although I doubt >that that is true considering how little `working code' I have seen >over the years). If we get so little `working code', why bother having sources newsgroups? I find the moderation processes of comp.sources.unix a boon. You do not. Start up a net.sources of your own and distribute it. Rutgers can probably afford to allow you the pleasure of the endeavor. :-) >[comp.sources.unix archive] is certainly an important service. >However, it has nothing to do with whether or not a group is moderated. >The net is in desparate need of archivers. Agreed, but I'd have a hard time justifying disk space to archive junk (like appears in the old net.sources) while I could probably justify space for comp.sources.unix since there is some element of "quality" there. You seem to argue that quality is second to quanity. >--------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!topaz!webber) Stan uucp:{shell,rice,seismo}!soma!sob Opinions expressed here Olan domain:sob@rice.edu or sob@soma.bcm.tmc.edu are ONLY mine & Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)790-9004 noone else's.