goodearl@world.std.com (Robert D Goodearl) (07/28/90)
In article <1990Jul28.011900.24190@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: > >There is a very good chance that we could have comp.binaries.windows.ms >if we wanted, and then we could have binaries where everybody would be >happy about them. > >However, there's a catch: somebody needs to be a moderator. I will not >volunteer; I already do comp.binaries.os2, and I don't want to double my >unpaid workload. :) > Could you describe for us the work that is involved in being a moderator? Are the binaries groups required to be moderated? I certainly value the work that's done by the moderators, but don't necessarily have time to do it myself. Can it work as a shared responsibility? As for the ftp archives and those of us who don't have ftp access, would it be possible to get a mail server like the one running on the nasa archives? (You send it a message like "send index" or "send xyz" and it sends the file index or the specified file to you via mail.) Would something like this be practical? Thanks, Tom, for your constructive ideas. Any takers out there? Bob Goodearl -- goodearl@world.std.com
u803535@lanl.gov (Wayne A. Vieira) (07/29/90)
In article <1990Jul28.044401.7591@world.std.com> goodearl@world.std.com (Robert D Goodearl) writes: >In article <1990Jul28.011900.24190@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >> >>There is a very good chance that we could have comp.binaries.windows.ms >>if we wanted, and then we could have binaries where everybody would be >>happy about them. >> >>However, there's a catch: somebody needs to be a moderator. I will not >>volunteer; I already do comp.binaries.os2, and I don't want to double my >>unpaid workload. :) > >Could you describe for us the work that is involved in being a moderator? >Are the binaries groups required to be moderated? I certainly value >the work that's done by the moderators, but don't necessarily have time >to do it myself. Can it work as a shared responsibility? > Knowing nothing about the tasks of a moderator, I would be very interested in this too. If it is technically within reach of me (I do not have sys-admin or root on the machines I read from) I would be very interested in helping out. >Thanks, Tom, for your constructive ideas. Yes, my thanks too. I have been very frustrated (if you haven't been able to tell from the "flame-like" posts) that EVERY effort to start a comp.binaries.windows.ms has been shot down with suggestions that "we don't need one" or "there wouldn't be enough activity". Then later on, I listen (watch) people complain about the binaries appearing here. They may not really belong here, but they don't belong in comp.binaries. ibm.pc either! (at least not anymore than our postings belong in comp.ibm.pc.) Those sections are way too generalized to be of any use to Windows users or Windows Developers. I would like to apologize for my flame-fit. I really think we could use a binaries section for windows, and I really think we need one. Having USENET access doesn't necessarily mean having FTP access, and I find it very frustrating when people who have both binary AND discussion access (wether the bin access is from FTP or from a local BBS, etc.) go out of their way to tell everybody what "we don't need". have a nice day. -- Wayne A. Vieira |Disclaimer: Right!!! Cray Research Inc. | As if someone would let *me* waynev@craywr.cray.com | speak on their behalf...
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (08/02/90)
In article <1990Jul28.044401.7591@world.std.com> goodearl@world.std.com (Robert D Goodearl) writes: | In article <1990Jul28.011900.24190@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: | > | >There is a very good chance that we could have comp.binaries.windows.ms | >if we wanted, and then we could have binaries where everybody would be | >happy about them. Since a number of windows programs have been included in submissions to c.b.i.p, do you really think you need your own newsgroup? -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (08/02/90)
In article <58454@lanl.gov> u803535@beta.UUCP (Wayne A. Vieira) writes: | >>However, there's a catch: somebody needs to be a moderator. I will not | >>volunteer; I already do comp.binaries.os2, and I don't want to double my | >>unpaid workload. :) | > | >Could you describe for us the work that is involved in being a moderator? | >Are the binaries groups required to be moderated? I certainly value | >the work that's done by the moderators, but don't necessarily have time | >to do it myself. Can it work as a shared responsibility? I guess it could, if you had very dedicated people. I find that it's hard to get people to do reviews, even after they offer, and only about 30% of what I get is (a) in the correct format, and (b) has a description of what it is and does. | > | Knowing nothing about the tasks of a moderator, I would be very interested | in this too. If it is technically within reach of me (I do not have | sys-admin or root on the machines I read from) I would be very interested | in helping out. Let me give you a typical case example: the submission comes in, out of order. You use the "put in order" tool, then save the parts, use the "strip the garbage tool" to find the encoded binary, then convert to a binary file, and (sometimes) a useful explanation of the program and useful return address for the submitter. You may need to read all the documentation and run the program to determine what it does, then use the "write a review" tool. In many cases the tool is a heavy duty editor. You unpack the archive, which is in any archive format you ever heard of, then virus check it with several programs. Then you review it (usually) or farm it out for review. Then you repack it into the standard archive type, encode it, break it into pieces, add the explanation to the 1st part, headers to every part, then submit it. This assumes that you don't get something as a self unpacking archive, in which case you need to unpack on a machine which can be low level formatted if you are hit with a virus. After you develop the right tools for doing all this, you should be able to do most submissions in an hour. | Yes, my thanks too. I have been very frustrated (if you haven't been able | to tell from the "flame-like" posts) that EVERY effort to start | a comp.binaries.windows.ms has been shot down with suggestions that | "we don't need one" or "there wouldn't be enough activity". Then | later on, I listen (watch) people complain about the binaries appearing here. | They may not really belong here, but they don't belong in comp.binaries. | ibm.pc either! What kind of volume are you talking about here? Are there ten programs a day or five a month? If you generate even five programs a week you may need a group, if it's less than that maybe just a reviewer for c.b.i.p. Would the volume be as high if a moderator had dropped dups, etc? -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) (08/15/90)
tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: | There has been quite a bit of discussion about this in comp.windows.ms, and | far too many binaries floating through that group. davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: > I'm a bit unhappy with the volume of binary postings in the windows >group, as you say "far too many." goodearl@world.std.com (Robert Goodearl) writes: 'As a regular reader of and contributor to cwm, I'm sad to say that some folks 'there don't seem to care. There seems to be a lack of understanding of and 'respect for the cooperative rules of the net. I (and others) have tried to 'make some reasonable arguments for posting binaries to cbip, and while 'we may have had some effect, binaries do continue to be posted to the cwm. ' 'If any of you have suggestions for how to educate the readers of cwm, I'd 'certainly be appreciative. Well, if too many people post binaries to comp.windows.ms then some sites will stop feeding it, some will want it to be moderated, some will try to create comp.binaries.mswindows, some will flame the posters and tell them to post c.b.i.p, and others will predict the imminent death of USENET. :-) -- Andy Toy, Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Internet: andy@mks.com 35 King Street North, Waterloo, UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!andy Ontario, CANADA N2J 2W9 Phone: 519-884-2251 FAX: 519-884-8861