pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) (01/24/90)
As a result of this year's shareware war on comp.sources.d, for
which I must take some responsibility, it has become clear to me
that in order to satisfy the competing claims of shareware
authors, potential shareware buyers and USENET sites we should
create a new newsgroup, provisionally named comp.shareware, to
carry shareware postings.
Why do we need comp.shareware?
The shareware concept allows the writers of software to distribute
their products to a large number of potential users on a 'try it -
if you like it buy it' basis. This saves the writer a fortune in
advertising and distribution costs, allowing him or her to sell
the product at a much lower price. Unfortunately, a large part of
this saving is made at the expense of the USENET community in
general, who have to bear the cost of transporting and storing the
software. Nevertheless, the facility is valuable and probably
gives a net benefit to the USENET community.
The problem arises that sites, whether trunk, branch or leaf
nodes, have no choice as to whether they carry shareware or not.
Remember, USENET is a non-commercial network. The existing source
and binary groups carry shareware and PD software intermixed.
I believe that *choice* is the important part of this. A site
should be free to choose whether to carry shareware or not. The
only way to achieve this is to create a dedicated shareware
newsgroup (or groups). I therefore propose the creation of
comp.shareware. Authors of shareware should post only to this
group, with a notice in comp.newprod drawing it to the attention
of subscribers who do not or cannot read comp.shareware. Note
that a corollary of this is that software posted to other groups
is to be regarded as freeware - shareware writers should beware!
Please send your votes to me, pete@tcom.stc.co.uk. You can say
what you like in the body of the message so long as the subject
contains the word SHAREWARE and a yes or no vote for or against
the creation of the group. The closing date for the vote is 3
weeks hence, February 13th 1990.
I am anxious to comply with the latest net protocol with regard
to this vote. If I have made technical errors please let me know
and I'll take whatever action is necessary.
Regards,
Peter Kendell
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Peter Kendell <pete@tcom.stc.co.uk> |
| ...{uunet!}mcvax!ukc!stc!pete |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (01/25/90)
----- News saved at 6 Sep 89 15:47:02 GMT In article <5954@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: |In article <1953@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: |> In article <2851@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: |> But consider this amazing fact: No matter how much money you earn writing |> software, you can't stop RMS from giving his software away. | |Consider this amazing fact. Jay isn't trying to stop anyone from giving |software away. RMS is trying to stop people from selling software. That's not correct. I had a talk with him this weekend at Worldcon, and copyleft doesn't keep you from selling software, just from keeping the source a secret or preventing the buyer from redistributing the software. There is a subtle diference there. Anyone can sell GNU software if they want, just as FSF does, in fact. FSF is working on getting floppy distribution in place for systems without tape drives. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon ----- News saved at 6 Sep 89 15:47:05 GMT In article <5954@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: |In article <1953@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: |> In article <2851@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: |> But consider this amazing fact: No matter how much money you earn writing |> software, you can't stop RMS from giving his software away. | |Consider this amazing fact. Jay isn't trying to stop anyone from giving |software away. RMS is trying to stop people from selling software. That's not correct. I had a talk with him this weekend at Worldcon, and copyleft doesn't keep you from selling software, just from keeping the source a secret or preventing the buyer from redistributing the software. There is a subtle diference there. Anyone can sell GNU software if they want, just as FSF does, in fact. FSF is working on getting floppy distribution in place for systems without tape drives. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon ----- News saved at 29 Sep 89 19:16:07 GMT I have gnuplot 110a and have a few thoughts about it which would make it somewhat easier to install. 1. More of the things which frequently need to be modified could be put in the makefile. The plot.h file can check for things like HELP being define in the makefile. I hate to say it, but there are so many programs called help, that a lot of people will have to change that name. 2. Same idea, have an option to make the help print a simple list of commands, no syntax. This makes the program more self contained and easier to install. 3. Consider a C version of all the asm stuff for the PC version. It would be almost as fast (I've done other similar things) using bios() calls and writing directly to the memory with a far array. The advantage is that (a) it would work on compilers without masm, and (b) xenix users could cross compile. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon ----- News saved at 4 Oct 89 13:54:46 GMT In article <1989Oct4.002056.22068@paris.ics.uci.edu>, sarrett@ics.uci.edu (Wendy Sarrett) writes: | I too agree we should go "sci.aquaria". I know at least one person | who can't get access because his current site doesn't have the alt | hierarchies. If the group were a moderated one for college level discussion of fish breeding I would agree, but in fact the existing group seems to consist of people who like fish as a hobby. Accordingly I feel that you should put the group in rec.aquaria. The fact that you don't get alt (and may not get rec) is not a good reason to misname a group. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon ----- News saved at 4 Oct 89 18:26:16 GMT In article <20556@gryphon.COM>, oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: | SCI sounds like a correct hierarchy. (comp.fish would have been great too) Would this be for using computers to breed fish or for the discussion going on in alt.fishing.computer about using integrated fish finders and electronic reels. Maybe comp.fish.breeding and comp.fish.catching? You breeders wouldn't want to put up with Bob Alpher's ASCII schematics of the MIDI interface on his reel, would you? -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon ----- News saved at 6 Oct 89 17:38:29 GMT In article <152@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>, dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes: | > ... An aquaria group is unrelated [to rec.pets] and | > should not be the first to be a sub-group. Sub-groups should be a | > reorganization of the parent group, not an unrelated subject. | | Sez who? There's a clear relationship between pets and aquaria, and | the group would fit well under rec.pets. Actually I think that unless you are going to break up rec.pets that rec.aquaria is a better name. This is a good point. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon ----- News saved at 18 Oct 89 17:11:55 GMT In article <1629@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM>, pasek@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Michael A. Pasek) writes: | This (unfortunately) appears to be the way to "make it" in today's | business world. You don't have to come up with anything new or | innovative, just take somebody else's sweat and make everyone THINK | that yours will be NEW AND IMPROVED. I don't think the quote of firm (a) price, (b) performance (if I get to measure it) and (c) delivery date is a problem. What used to happen is that IBM and others would say "we have a great new system coming out in January which will really beat what's on the market." With not details there was a lot of wait and see. IBM was really bashed by a number of people including me for NOT sharing some near term plans with major customers, because we bought equipment which really was obsolete in a few months. Right now most of the major vendors (I shouldn't name them) have meetings with us on a regular basis, and we make plans based on what's coming. It doesn't always result in a wait, many time we see that the new product is not enough better that what we can get now. In a number of companies with a yearly budget, you *can't* wait, or the money vanished at the end of the year. I admit that I don't really like IBM, but information which improves planning accuracy is a big win for the customer, and nothing to criticize. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon ----- News saved at 19 Oct 89 13:55:57 GMT In article <2949@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: | ...and a poor attempt, at that. This group simply doesn't belong in sci. | It belongs in rec, like other technical hobbies, such as rec.aviation, | rec.ham-radio.*, rec.autos.tech, ... That seems to be the best argument yet. Now maybe we can have a real vote on rec.aquaria (or rec.pets.fish). -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon ----- News saved at 27 Oct 89 15:32:27 GMT Most of the actual productivity studies I read a few years ago when I was in an office automation group indicate that there is no best editor. This fits what I believe from experience. The best programming editor is one which fits the way *the user* thinks. That may be jove, microemacs, gedit, vi, brief, pc-edit, or any of the 30 other editors around. If the things you would like to do aren't supported you will constantly be trying to "program around" the limitations of the editor and do things "their way." For word processing there is benefit when everyone used the same system, because the files are frequently not pure ASCII, but for programming I would suggest letting people select what they want, and if you have a programmable editor like Epsilon, Brief, MicroEMACS, etc, see if you can find a macro guru inhouse to help people make it just what they want. It will pay off in the long run as far as I can tell. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon ----- News saved at 14 Nov 89 20:07:33 GMT In article <1518@bleen.gwusun.gwu.edu>, kelso@seas.gwu.edu writes: | | I forwarded a copy of the article "Great money maker!" to the manager | of cucstud.UUCP. I sent a copy to the postmaster at Takoma Park MD since use of U.S. mail was involved and it was easy to get all those addresses. Can you believe that this school is "affiliated with" a religious organization. I won't say which one because they are undoubtedly not involved. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: compare strings, strcmp Summary: Expires: References: <4463@blake.acs.washington.edu> <11605@smoke.BRL.MIL> <308@charyb.COM> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: strcmp,strings Newsgroups: misc.forsale Subject: Re: A Great Money Maker - Scientifically Proven SYSTEM ADM Summary: Expires: References: <2206@cucstud.UUCP> <11461@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: Hey, CASH!, terminated In article <11461@cbnews.ATT.COM> wjf@cbnews.ATT.COM (william.j.fallon,54236,mv,3c039,508 960 6170) writes: >!In article <2206@cucstud.UUCP> root@cucstud.UUCP (super-user) writes: >!> >!>I interrupt the currently schedule program for an important announcement!!! >!> >!>David Walton formerly dwalton@cucstud.UUCP who posted >!>"A Great Money Maker - Scientifically Proven" >!>Message-ID: <2193@cucstud.UUCP> >!>Which was a pyramid scheme. >!> >!>NO LONGER HAS AN ACCOUNT ON THIS SYSTEM. >!> >!>This type of posting as you are probably aware is against the rules >!>or at least the spirit of USENET and is possible ILLEGAL! Davids >!>account has be TERMINATED and the Department Chairperson has been >!>advised. I have also issued a control message to cancel the article. >!> >!>I would like to thank those of you that brought this to my attention. >!> >!>I now return you to the program already in progress. >!> >!>Leroy Cain; Columbia Union College; Mathematical Sciences Department >!>7600 Flower Ave. WH406; Takoma Park, Md 20912 >!>(301) 891-4172 uunet!cucstud!lcain >!> uunet!cucstud!root > > >Uh, I hope somewhere in here we considered the possibility that this >guy just made an honest mistake? > Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: compare strings, strcmp Summary: Expires: References: <4463@blake.acs.washington.edu> <11605@smoke.BRL.MIL> <308@charyb.COM> <1632@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <34344@cornell.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: strcmp,strings Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: sorting strings Summary: Expires: References: <4496@blake.acs.washington.edu> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: usa Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: sort, string Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: compare strings, strcmp Summary: Expires: References: <4463@blake.acs.washington.edu> <11605@smoke.BRL.MIL> <308@charyb.COM> <1632@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <11623@smoke.BRL.MIL> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: strcmp,strings Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,comp.mail.uucp,comp.os.vms Subject: Re: New newsgroup hierarchy Summary: Expires: References: <1618.25614348@mccall.uucp> <1989Nov16.172110.21492@utzoo.uucp> <91457@pyramid.pyramid.com> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: ----- News saved at 17 Nov 89 21:41:40 GMT In article <7470@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> kim@beowulf.UCSD.EDU (Geoffrey K Kim) writes: | Everyone knows that there's no life outside of USENET! I think we | should vote on the following: | | "Should Peter da Silva leave his wife?" 8-) ================ I OBJECT! ================ You can't call for a vote until you specify *where* he should leave her. And if they will take other used wives. That's a joke dear, joke... a JOKE dammit! -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon Newsgroups: news.groups,news.misc,comp.sys.amiga,alt.cyberpunk,alt.flame Subject: Re: Help me, I'm out of control Summary: Expires: References: <7013@ficc.uu.net> <7470@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <7470@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> kim@beowulf.UCSD.EDU (Geoffrey K Kim) writes: | Everyone knows that there's no life outside of USENET! I think we | should vote on the following: | | "Should Peter da Silva leave his wife?" 8-) ================ I OBJECT! ================ You can't call for a vote until you specify *where* he should leave her. And if they will take other used wives. That's a joke dear, joke... a JOKE dammit! ----- News saved at 17 Nov 89 21:52:39 GMT In article <24143@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: | Have you tried giving your wife a network feed? A good example of my theory that anything can be made to sound dirty if you say it right... walk up to a woman, leer, and say "boy would I love to give YOU a network feed." My wife loved it. I do believe that there is a "dirty mind" operation, one kind of person sees purient interest in almost everything and loves it, another hates it. If you want a sick example drop me a line, I prefer not to post it. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon Newsgroups: news.groups,news.misc,comp.sys.amiga,alt.cyberpunk Subject: Re: Help me, I'm out of control Summary: Expires: References: <7013@ficc.uu.net> <24143@cup.portal.com> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <24143@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: | Have you tried giving your wife a network feed? A good example of my theory that anything can be made to sound dirty if you say it right... walk up to a woman, leer, and say "boy would I love to give YOU a network feed." My wife loved it. I do believe that there is a "dirty mind" operation, one kind of person sees purient interest in almost everything and loves it, another hates it. If you want a sick example drop me a line, I prefer not to post it. ----- News saved at 20 Nov 89 21:51:44 GMT In article <JGREELY.89Nov20162124@oz.cis.ohio-state.edu> J Greely <jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: | Am I the only one who thinks it's a bit odd to see a copylefted source | posting that's less than half the size of the (included) GNU public | license? I'm all for protecting software freedom, but come *on*. If | I copyrighted every sub-100-line program I wrote, I'd quickly run out | of disk space. I confess that I usually settle for something a little more... concise... ah, there's the word. I never let anything go public domain anymore, but get by with: Copyright 1988 by Bill Davidsen, all right reserved. This program and documentation may be freely used and distributed providing it is complete and unmodified. Effectively all I have done is prevent anyother person/group from claiming copyright. You *can* copyright something in public domain, although you probably can't enforce it. Ask misc.legal for details. If it's a BIG piece of software I may add something about not selling it or including it with any package which is sold. If it might reasonably need to be modified I gin it up to say that the original must be distributed along with any modified version, just to avoid getting blamed for something I didn't write, and to make an unhacked version available as a starting point. I noted the relative size of the license and software, too. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon Newsgroups: alt.sources.paranoia Subject: Re: gettime.c - gets another system's time Summary: Expires: References: <1929@psuhcx.psu.edu> <JGREELY.89Nov20162124@oz.cis.ohio-state.edu> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) Followup-To: Distribution: alt Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <JGREELY.89Nov20162124@oz.cis.ohio-state.edu> J Greely <jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: | Am I the only one who thinks it's a bit odd to see a copylefted source | posting that's less than half the size of the (included) GNU public | license? I'm all for protecting software freedom, but come *on*. If | I copyrighted every sub-100-line program I wrote, I'd quickly run out | of disk space. I confess that I usually settle for something a little more... concise... ah, there's the word. I never let anything go public domain anymore, but get by with: Copyright 1988 by Bill Davidsen, all right reserved. This program and documentation may be freely used and distributed providing it is complete and unmodified. Effectively all I have done is prevent anyother person/group from claiming copyright. You *can* copyright something in public domain, although you probably can't enforce it. Ask misc.legal for details. If it's a BIG piece of software I may add something about not selling it or including it with any package which is sold. If it might reasonably need to be modified I gin it up to say that the original must be distributed along with any modified version, just to avoid getting blamed for something I didn't write, and to make an unhacked version available as a starting point. I noted the relative size of the license and software, too. Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: Macro names imbedded in pp-numbers [repost] Summary: Expires: References: <11134@riks.csl.sony.co.jp> <31615@watmath.waterloo.edu> <11647@smoke.BRL.MIL> <TOM.89Nov20072452@hcx2.ssd.harris.com> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <TOM.89Nov20072452@hcx2.ssd.harris.com> tom@ssd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes: | The committee response to this was that it would allow too much stuff that | appears to be gibberish lexically to actually be a legitimate C program. I | consider this to be the lamest excuse I have ever heard, after all, when | hasn't gibberish been legal C? And it is a particularly lame excuse when the | alternative the committee selected makes code that looks like perfectly | ordinary (formerly) legal C, illegal instead. I hadn't heard this one before. I knew some things were left slightly wrong because the committee was tired and wanted to get the standard out, but I didn't realize that this was another side effect. It's too bad that there is no way to get another round of public review. Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: directory handling in ansi C Summary: Expires: References: <13288@s.ms.uky.edu> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: ansi c, directories Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: Re: Order of Evaluation (plus ?'s) Summary: Expires: References: <1989Nov18.232326.23711@utzoo.uucp> <12570034@hpclwjm.HP.COM> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <12570034@hpclwjm.HP.COM> walter@hpclwjm.HP.COM (Walter Murray) writes: >Doug Gwyn writes: >> In article <13871@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> bailey@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU.UUCP (Kirk Bailey) writes: >> -I'm curious about the fate of the changed floating point evaluation >> -constraints which were a part of some of the intermediate dpANSI "C" documents; >> -the idea being that the programmer could be assured of a fixed evaluation >> -order without requiring the use of temps. The current doc's I have seem to >> -no longer mention this (or the synchronization aspect of unary '+')? > >> Unary + is no longer the way to do this. Use parentheses instead. > >There are times when the parentheses aren't even needed. ANSI C guarantees >that > p = q + r + s; >will behave exactly the same as > p = (q + r) + s; >In this respect a standard-conforming C compiler will actually have >less latitude than a FORTRAN compiler when it comes to rearranging >expressions. > >Walter Murray >---------- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Tandon 486, DesqView, Landmark Speedbar question Summary: Expires: References: <8@tandon.UUCP> <2554PICHER@MAINE> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) Followup-To: Distribution: usa Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <2554PICHER@MAINE> PICHER@MAINE.BITNET (Michael W. Picher) writes: | Now, suppose you run in a Desqview window... You are | running the processor in the protected mode and it will run faster | (but a speed rating of 100 Mhz under 386/ix???, maybe with a 386/33 | of if you were talking about running 386/ix on the 486). Anyway, I do | believe that because you were in the protected mode you were getting | a higher speed rating than in DOS. By any chance do you mean "virtual 8086 mode" rather than "Protected mode?" The ix/386 native stuff runs protected, but the DOS emulation runs virtual86. I'm not sure about the Desqview, I thought it used QEMM to emulate LIMS, but I don't have the details fresh in my memory. Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: A Hello to Arms Summary: Expires: References: <13286@s.ms.uky.edu> <11623@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: top level group names hierarchies Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: System administration Summary: Expires: References: <2903@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> <528@panix.UUCP> <36510@apple.Apple.COM> <17049@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> <2931@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> <1730@l.cc.purdue.edu> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <1730@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >In article <2931@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) writes: > > ............................... > >>Strange. It seems that you are saying that a system-administrator should >>care whether a non-paying user stays or goes... What a strange idea! > >>On MY system, I make the rules for MY convienience -- if the users don't like >>it, they are free to find someone else to give them access. As it is, >>they get a lot more than they pay for. > >The system OWNER has the right to do this. A system administrator has an >important function to perform, namely, to make the system work well for the >USERS. As administrator, s/he has no business making rules for his convenience >if they degrade the system in the eyes of the owner and/or users. >-- >Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 >Phone: (317)494-6054 >hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Proposed Guidelines Change (was Re: A Few Observations) Summary: Expires: References: <36393@apple.Apple.COM> <3503@kitty.UUCP> <45039@sgi.sgi.com> <36675@apple.Apple.COM> <5969@unix.SRI.COM> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <5969@unix.SRI.COM> maslak@unix.UUCP (Valerie Maslak) writes: >In article <36675@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>In both directions. The name 'comp.women' was chosen for political purposes; >>a political fight should not then be surprising. > >That's a bunch of boloney. > >The truth is that the proposers and the voters thought that >comp.women was a fine group name that made sense in the hierarchy. >Certain members of the junta didn't agree. THEY injected the >politics. > >Chuq refers to guidelines versus rules. IT SEEMS THAT HE AND A FEW >OTHERS CAN MAKE RULES; the rest of us have to settle for >guidelines. > >Valerie Maslak Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: A radical new departure for newsgro Summary: Expires: References: <7002@ficc.uu.net> <41800009@inmet> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: ----- News saved at 27 Nov 89 14:44:48 GMT In article <1989Nov26.204924.24209@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: | Who gets disk space, who gets an account, who loses their account | because they were naughty, who shall live and who shall die. The | next-level obsession is implementing software to enforce the first set | of obsessions. You raise a number of good issues. We have had a few people temporarily or parmanently banned fro posting news due to the content of previous postings. I will note, however, that these actions have come not because of WHAT was said but HOW it was said. Use of vulgarities is highly frowned upon. Note that some of my postings come from a machine not operated by a company, and that I may say things there which I would not from a business machine. I don't consider that to be unreasonable. Since this thread is drifting from arch issues, I have redirected followup to me. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon Newsgroups: exos:@crdgw1:comp.arch Subject: Re: fad computing Summary: Expires: References: <89Nov25.051946est.2233@neat.cs.toronto.edu> <10446@encore.Encore.COM> <1989Nov26.204924.24209@world.std.com> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) Followup-To: poster Distribution: usa Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <1989Nov26.204924.24209@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: | Who gets disk space, who gets an account, who loses their account | because they were naughty, who shall live and who shall die. The | next-level obsession is implementing software to enforce the first set | of obsessions. You raise a number of good issues. We have had a few people temporarily or parmanently banned fro posting news due to the content of previous postings. I will note, however, that these actions have come not because of WHAT was said but HOW it was said. Use of vulgarities is highly frowned upon. Note that some of my postings come from a machine not operated by a company, and that I may say things there which I would not from a business machine. I don't consider that to be unreasonable. Since this thread is drifting from arch issues, I have redirected followup to me. ----- News saved at 27 Nov 89 14:57:23 GMT In article <Nov.25.16.44.28.1989.3496@police.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@police.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: > > New Yorkers are for some inscrutable reason very provincial (as if > being from New York were something to brag about). On I-87 north of > Lake George heading towards Montreal there is a sign that asserts > something like "You are now entering the most scenic highway in the > United States." Bull. The most scenic highway in the United States > is arguably I-70 between Denver and Grand Junction, Colorado > (particularly the stretch that runs along the Colorado River through > Glenwood Canyon). You may, of course, argue what you will. However, the I87 Northway was chosen by a national panel appointed to select a "most beautiful" highway. To imply that this is some ego trip on the part of NewYorkers shows ignorance of the actual situation. If your state was selected I suspect that you would put up a sign, too. If you want to disagree with the choice, fell free, but don't imply that this is in some form a self-decided evaluation. Also, don't ask me why anyone appointed a commission to select a most beautiful highway, I have no idea. I *believe* that the selection was made only from Interstate highways, but it was ten years ago, more or less, and I don't remember the details any more. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon Newsgroups: exos:@crdgw1:poster Subject: Re: Another person who can't distinguish between NY and NYC Summary: Expires: References: <89Nov22.162757est.2925@neat.cs.toronto.edu> <Nov.25.16.44.28.1989.3496@police.rutgers.edu> <2248@promark.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) Followup-To: Distribution: usa Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: How much of a distinction is there to be made??? In article <Nov.25.16.44.28.1989.3496@police.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@police.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: > > New Yorkers are for some inscrutable reason very provincial (as if > being from New York were something to brag about). On I-87 north of > Lake George heading towards Montreal there is a sign that asserts > something like "You are now entering the most scenic highway in the > United States." Bull. The most scenic highway in the United States > is arguably I-70 between Denver and Grand Junction, Colorado > (particularly the stretch that runs along the Colorado River through > Glenwood Canyon). You may, of course, argue what you will. However, the I87 Northway was chosen by a national panel appointed to select a "most beautiful" highway. To imply that this is some ego trip on the part of NewYorkers shows ignorance of the actual situation. If your state was selected I suspect that you would put up a sign, too. If you want to disagree with the choice, fell free, but don't imply that this is in some form a self-decided evaluation. Also, don't ask me why anyone appointed a commission to select a most beautiful highway, I have no idea. I *believe* that the selection was made only from Interstate highways, but it was ten years ago, more or less, and I don't remember the details any more. Newsgroups: poster Subject: Re: Another person who can't distinguish between NY and NYC Summary: Expires: References: <89Nov22.162757est.2925@neat.cs.toronto.edu> <Nov.25.16.44.28.1989.3496@police.rutgers.edu> <2248@promark.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: usa Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: How much of a distinction is there to be made??? In article <2248@promark.UUCP> mark@promark.UUCP (Mark J. DeFilippis) writes: >In article <Nov.25.16.44.28.1989.3496@police.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@police.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes: >> >> New Yorkers are for some inscrutable reason very provincial (as if >> being from New York were something to brag about). On I-87 north of >> Lake George heading towards Montreal there is a sign that asserts >> something like "You are now entering the most scenic highway in the >> United States." Bull. The most scenic highway in the United States >> is arguably I-70 between Denver and Grand Junction, Colorado >> (particularly the stretch that runs along the Colorado River through >> Glenwood Canyon). > >You're wrong. The most scenic stretch is the New Jersey Turnpike as it goes >through Elizabeth, N.J. There is a wonderful aqua blue/green lake that is just >dreamy near the GAF film plant. People stop to look at it, and they sell 5 >minute bottles of air near the side of the road. My wife and I just love to open >the windows and let the fresh air in as we drive down to Pennsylvania. > >Just to the North of that chemical lake is that water cooler company, >what is it? Big Bear or something. To the south of it is those >New Jersey "Garden Fresh Tomatoes", as good ole boy Tom puts it? >I will say the taxes are lower however, since they are economically >keen. Did they let the dioxin contaminated land go to waste? Hell no. >Makes you wonder where they grow those Jersey fresh tomatoes though. > >My wife and I note that as we drive into New York, we follow the brown >air from N.J. It goes from a Dark Mud brown to a beige/grey when you hit >N.Y.C. > >Maybe N.Y'ers are provincial because we are being poisoned by N.J. chemical >plants. And as for your comments about "looking across the Hudson", on >a good day on the N.J. side I doubt you can see across the Hudson. Oh... >you must be talking about the weekends when the plants are closed, when >most people living in N.Y.C. can come out and breath the air... > >Signed, >Tired of being poisoned by N.J. chemical plants and proud to be a N.Y.er. > >-- >Adelphi University, Garden City, NY 11530 (516) 663-1170 >SA @ Department of Mathematics and Computer Science >UUCP: philabs!sbcs!bnlux0!adelphi!markd Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix Subject: Reading news with EGA/VGA Expires: References: Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: world Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: C-Execute-Command Summary: Expires: References: <1989Dec2.161237.23913@virtech.uucp> <2615@servax0.essex.ac.uk> <1103891355263101@thelake.UUCP> <1989Dec5.010349.2810@virtech.uucp> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: rec.music.pfloyd Summary: Expires: References: <4113@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <4113@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> howells@xenon.arc.nasa.gov writes: > >The group should be called rec.music.pfloyd, should be unmoderated, and >should be for the purpose of discussing anything of interest pertaining >to Pink Floyd (music, videos, books, etc.). Someone said there has been >little or no traffic concerning Floyd in rec.music.misc. I seem to recall >seeing a lot of discussion in both rec.music.misc and alt.rock-n-roll, but >then I don't think traffic should be the deciding factor on whether or not >a group should be created. If there is enough interest, and the vote count >bears it out, then the group should exist. > >Personally, I'm more interested in Syd Barrett, so I will probably check in >on the group from time to time... > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >John Howells | "Science does not | howells@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov >Sterling Software | remove the terror | howells@krypton.arc.nasa.gov >Palo Alto, Ca. | of the Gods" | howells%kry@ames.arc.nasa.gov Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Time Travel Poll Summary: Expires: References: <422@racine.ACA.MCC.COM> <5262@bd.sei.cmu.edu> Sender: Reply-exos:@crdgw1:To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: Where would you go? In article <5262@bd.sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: | I would travel back to the day before you got this idea, and | yank the plug on your computer. | | Seriously, Gary, this is the fourth time I've read this post; | it seems to be appearing twice daily, and it's getting boring. It appears that some of the undigestifiers recently posted may have bugs which result in their reposting anything or everything. This was discussed in one of the news groups. The tip-off is that after the first posting the path changes and may not even include the original posters machine. The article gets a new Message-ID, too, I believe. Note that this does not mean that Gary didn't post multiply time, just that there is a problems in this area and he may not be at fault. I don't think the poll includes *changing* things, but you could go back in time and watch him post it. Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions Subject: Re: Killing messages Summary: Expires: References: <12083@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <12107@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Sender: Reply-exos:@crdgw1:To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <12107@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> jmdoyle@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jennifer Mary Doyle) writes: | Good question. Tell me the answer. The answer is *not* unsubscribe, as about | 10 million people have emailed me to say, one of them in big letters. It is | not killfiles affecting the header either, as I've tried this. The group | name doesn't show up in the header. So, what do I do? Now that you've restated the question, the answer is clear... ----- News saved at 12 Dec 89 14:14:21 GMT I also asked for info on the Compuadd caching ESDI controller, which is mush less expensive. Unfortunately all I got were three replies from people who have tried it. Two said it worked poorly with UNIX, not at all with Xenix. One said it worked beautifully with UNIX and Xenix, and was faster than the DPT. Due to the price being much better and the 30 day return policy, when I go to ESDI I'm going to try it, but that's several onths away. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon Newsgroups: author Subject: Re: Seeking info on DPT Cacheing controller Summary: Expires: References: <860@wet.UUCP> Sender: Reply-exos:@crdgw1:To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: hd controller, cache I also asked for info on the Compuadd caching ESDI controller, which is mush less expensive. Unfortunately all I got were three replies from people who have tried it. Two said it worked poorly with UNIX, not at all with Xenix. One said it worked beautifully with UNIX and Xenix, and was faster than the DPT. Due to the price being much better and the 30 day return policy, when I go to ESDI I'm going to try it, but that's several onths away. Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: unsubscribe me pPLEEEEZE......... Summary: Expires: References: <21732@adm.BRL.MIL> <504@escom.com> <JBW.89Dec17215515@bucsf.bu.edu> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <JBW.89Dec17215515@bucsf.bu.edu> jbw@bucsf.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes: >In article <504@escom.com> al@escom.com (Al Donaldson) writes: > > In article <21732@adm.BRL.MIL>, grant@panhed writes: > > Nothinmg seems to work!! > > UNSUB GRANT UNIX-WIZ > > That's funny, I tried "UNSUB GRANT CHEEZ-WHIZ" and it worked GREAT! > Maybe you were in the wrong group.. > > Seriously, can't the mailing list folks do something about not echoing > these subscription/unsubscription requests back to Usenet? > Maybe education, nah... > >The problem appears to be the result of confusion between BITNET and >Internet mailing lists. Most BITNET mailing lists are managed by a >program called listserv (bitserv?) that is reachable by the address >listserv@machine. To subscribe/unsubscribe, you send mail to >listserv@machine. To send mail to the list, you send mail to >list-name@machine instead. > >Internet mailing lists are usually maintained by humans. To subscribe/ >unsubscribe to a list, you send mail to list-name-request@machine. To >send mail to the list, you send mail to list-name@machine. > >It's actually sort of humorous. On BITNET lists, you get a lot of "Please >unsubscribe me from this list" messages, while on Internet lists (and >gatewayed newsgroups), you get a lot of "UNSUB LIST-L Firstname Lastname" >messages. > >Oh well, maybe someday everyone will figure it out ... > >-- >Joe Wells <jbw@bucsf.bu.edu> >jbw%bucsf.bu.edu@bu-it.bu.edu >...!harvard!bu-cs!bucsf!jbw Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: Re: AIDS TROJAN (PC) Summary: Expires: References: <0008.8912181735.AA25789@ge.sei.cmu.edu> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <0008.8912181735.AA25789@ge.sei.cmu.edu> IA96@PACE.BITNET (IA96000) writes: >The AIDS trojan does bring up some interesting questions. Political >issues aside for a second, what makes anyone think that the company or >individuals behind this are in Panama? > >Just because the mail goes to Panama does not mean a thing. There >are also more lax regulations (I would assume) about renting post >office boxes outside of the United States. > >Has anyone considered that this might be work of the people who >introduced BRAIN to the world? Other than the address, it might >well be the same culprits. > >Rather than worry about who did it, perhaps it would be a better >idea to figure out what to do about? After all the potential for >damage is quite high, and little seems to be know about what is >happening, so far. Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: ISC disk driver bug? (Was Disks Hang Under 2.0.2 SCSI add WD1006SRV2) Summary: Expires: References: <654400003@cdp> <6700047@adaptex> <258C899B.28434@paris.ics.uci.edu> <1926@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <258D393B.1670@paris.ics.uci.edu> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <258D393B.1670@paris.ics.uci.edu> baxter@ics.uci.edu (Ira Baxter) writes: >davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes: > >>In article <258C899B.28434@paris.ics.uci.edu> baxter@ics.uci.edu (Ira Baxter) writes: > >>| I use a Western Digital WD1006SRV2 (RLL 1-1 track-buffered) >>| controller. I (and others with 1006s) have seen identical symptoms; >>| until I saw this thread, I assumed there was something funny about the >>| WD1006. I have been chasing this problem unsuccessfully even with >>| WD's aid. I conclude the problem is more due to the ISC drivers than >>| the hardware. > >> Karl Denninger posted a note on jumper settings with the 1006 which >>could cure your problem. >>-- > >There are only two interesting jumpers on a WD1006 according to my WD >documentation: W1-1,2, handling "latched" mode (unfortunately, the >docs *don't* say what this does), and W1-5-6, which disables cache >control. If the cure is disabling the cache, then the point of buying >the controller was wasted. I'm waiting for WD to tell me what >"latched" mode does. In any case, *the ISC drivers* should diagnose a >problem, rather than the system merely hanging, unless "latched" mode >causes the controller to put data in a location not requested by the >driver... which seems impossible, since this controller only does PIO >transfers, and therefore the target addresses in the machine are >controlled by the IN instructions, not the controller. > >-- >Ira Baxter Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix (multiuser issue) Summary: Expires: References: <260@ndla.UUCP> <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> <1989Dec20.203407.1000@ico.isc.com> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <1989Dec20.203407.1000@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >jmann@bigbootay (Jim Mann) writes: >... >> As for the fact that OS/2 is multi tasking but not multiuser, I consider >> this a feauture, not a bug. I think that one of the great advances in >> computers in the last 10 years has been that everyone can have his/her >> own box (with no other users to do things to crash it) but still be connected >> to a network allowing data sharing as desired. > >This argument is backwards. If you want to have a UNIX box per person, >that's just fine. We do it here; we also have network connections so that >the machines can get to one another and to servers. A multi-user system >doesn't *require* multiple users on the machine. > >OS/2 (and DOS), however, require a machine per user, whether you really >need it or not. Why should my wife and I have to buy two machines (plus >network cards?!?) just so we can occasionally work at home at the same >time? With UNIX, we've got just one, and everything is in one place. >Moreover, we only have to worry about a place to put one machine, power >for one, backups for one, etc., etc. > >The issue of a user crashing the machine just doesn't arise if you've got >decent protection and a real operating system underneath you. >-- >Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 > ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance. Newsgroups: news.lists Subject: Re: Top 25 News Submitters by User by number of articles for the last 2 weeks Summary: Expires: References: <74247@uunet.UU.NET> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <74247@uunet.UU.NET> newsstats@uunet.UU.NET writes: > > No. of % of >Rank Articles KBytes Total User > 1 114 120.0 0.1% richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) > 28% alt.aquaria 23% sci.aquaria 19% talk.bizarre > 8% alt.flame 5% rec.autos > 2 105 159.5 0.2% boyajian@ruby.DEC.COM (The Dread Pirate Roberts) > 20% rec.arts.comics 18% rec.arts.sf-lovers 16% alt.cult-movies > 16% rec.arts.movies 16% rec.arts.tv 5% rec.video > 3 94 132.3 0.1% henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) > 38% sci.space 29% sci.space.shuttle 7% rec.arts.comics > 4 93 194.9 0.2% tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) > 35% comp.sys.mac.programmer 11% sci.skeptic 10% rec.arts.comics > 6% alt.cyberpunk 6% comp.misc 5% rec.arts.sf-lovers > 5 86 99.5 0.1% brandonl@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM (Brandon G. Lovested) > 70% rec.arts.startrek 11% comp.sys.amiga 9% rec.arts.movies > 6 81 93.7 0.1% peter@sugar.HACKERCORP.COM (Peter da Silva) > 38% alt.religion.computers 21% gnu.misc.discuss 14% comp.sys.amiga.tech > 12% alt.cyberpunk 6% alt.folklore.computers > 7 79 161.6 0.2% peter@ficc.UU.NET (Peter da Silva) > 25% alt.sources 18% news.groups 10% comp.lang.c > 6% comp.lang.fortran 6% comp.windows.news > 8 76 116.8 0.1% usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) > 20% comp.sources.bugs 19% rec.ham-radio 9% soc.culture.indian > 8% alt.callahans 8% soc.singles 6% comp.sys.amiga.tech > 9 74 48.9 0.1% e07@nikhefh.NIKHEF.NL (Eric Wassenaar) > 100% comp.sys.apollo > 10 72 68.7 0.1% phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) > 25% talk.politics.guns 23% talk.politics.misc 11% misc.consumers > 10% comp.sys.ibm.pc 9% rec.video > 11 70 113.8 0.1% peppler@uxh.CSO.UIUC.EDU (Randy Peppler) > 68% rec.sport.basketball 28% rec.sport.football > 12 70 68.7 0.1% timlee@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Timothy J. Lee) > 21% soc.culture.china 21% soc.culture.hongkong 14% soc.culture.japan > 10% soc.culture.asian.american 9% talk.politics.misc > 13 69 73.7 0.1% cooleyra@clutx.CLARKSON.EDU (Pixel,,,) > 36% alt.sex 27% rec.arts.startrek 11% alt.peeves > 8% alt.folklore.computers 6% alt.flame > 14 67 67.9 0.1% dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) > 31% soc.motss 23% talk.religion.misc 16% sci.med > 15 66 87.6 0.1% brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) > 21% rec.arts.startrek 17% rec.arts.tv 14% rec.video > 10% rec.arts.drwho 8% rec.arts.tv.uk 7% comp.text > 6% comp.lang.postscript > 16 64 99.6 0.1% bobk@boulder.COLORADO.EDU (Bob Kinne) > 34% rec.sport.football 23% rec.sport.basketball 16% sci.skeptic > 11% rec.backcountry 7% rec.skiing > 17 63 62.5 0.1% meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) > 35% gnu.misc.discuss 30% talk.bizarre 27% talk.politics.guns > 18 62 62.6 0.1% scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) > 18% misc.legal 16% rec.music.classical 11% rec.music.synth > 8% rec.arts.tv 5% misc.consumers > 19 58 168.1 0.2% dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) > 32% soc.singles 31% rec.bicycles 19% alt.sex > 9% sci.environment 5% comp.ai > 20 58 136.3 0.1% jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond) > 14% misc.consumers.house 13% alt.sex 13% misc.consumers > 11% rec.autos.tech 8% talk.politics.guns 7% rec.autos > 6% comp.unix.i386 5% rec.models.rockets 5% rec.pets > 21 58 115.1 0.1% 6600pete@hub.UUCP > 38% comp.sys.mac 17% comp.sys.next 13% alt.religion.computers > 6% rec.games.frp 5% comp.sys.mac.programmer > 22 58 97.1 0.1% regard@hpsdde.HP.COM (Adrienne Regard) > 45% soc.men 41% soc.women 9% talk.abortion > 23 57 120.4 0.1% moriarty@tc.FLUKE.COM (Jeff Meyer) > 37% rec.arts.tv 36% rec.arts.comics 7% rec.arts.movies > 6% rec.humor > 24 57 83.1 0.1% chuq@apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) > 36% rec.arts.sf-lovers 11% comp.sys.mac 10% rec.arts.books > 8% news.groups 8% rec.arts.comics 6% rec.sport.hockey > 25 56 237.7 0.3% byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder) > 23% alt.individualism 15% misc.headlines 11% talk.philosophy.misc > 10% talk.politics.theory 9% alt.activism 7% comp.edu > 5% alt.drugs 5% sci.environment 5% soc.culture.asian.american Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Was - Re: Xerox sues Apple!!! Now processor wars. Summary: Expires: References: <899@lzaz.ATT.COM> <1360@unocss..unl.edu> <1990Jan1.202916.13637@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> Sender: Reply-exos:@crdgw1:To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <1990Jan1.202916.13637@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu.UUCP (Terrell Drinkard) writes: | The reason older Macs cannot run some of the newer Macintosh | software is NOT that the new processor have different instruction | sets, it is because of upgrades in the ROMs. The same thing | happens with the PCs. Remember the original PC? Could you run EGA | graphics on it? Could you even run a hard-drive on it? No. But, | with appropriate upgrades in the BIOS, it is now possible to run | all this stuff and more. The same thing happens to the Macintosh; | new features become available and are used by various applications. | And since these features are not supported in the older ROMs (the | Mac's BIOS if you will) the older Macs can't run those | applications. | | >THIS IS NOT A FLAME. Ah, now that the disclaimer's out of the way... | > | >Is this because of the processor chip itself, or an incompatible | >platform? Are there actually 68000 instructions that don't work the | >same on an 030, or is it just that the Mac {SE, II, SE/30} has a | >different structure which is (usually) shielded from ("polite") | >applications throught the System software? | > | >I don't know. I'm just asking. It does seem odd to create an | >incompatible chip. Makes me wonder what the marketing department at | >Motorola is up to. | | In a slightly different vein: the instruction sets for the 68010, | 68020, 68030, and even the 68040 all contain the instruction set of | the 68000 as a subset. Each revision of the processor *added* more | features. The only variation on this that I'm aware of is with the | 68030's MMU command set differs with the 68020 + 68851 (PMMU) | instruction set by one or two commands (depending on which | direction you are looking from). | | > ... Michael Ho, University of Nebraska | >Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu USnail: 115 Nebraska Union | >BITnet: cosx001@UNLCDC3 Lincoln, NE 68588-0461 | | I would also point out a much more complete answer to the questions | about how to do xxx on the Mac in an earlier message. I'd | reproduce it here, but it's New Years Day, and I'm wanted back in | bed soon. :-) | | Terry | | Disclaimer et la Signaturo: | Hell no, I'm not responsible for what I say! If everyone were | responsible for what they said, we'd have had a balanced budget in | 1984. Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space Summary: Expires: References: <9537@hoptoad.uucp> <1990Jan7.131121.10944@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> <9549@hoptoad.uucp> <1990Jan8.151837.6831@utzoo.uucp> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@.UUCP (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.os.os2 Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION of comp.binaries.os2 Summary: Expires: References: <676@banyan.UUCP> <1990Jan9.220230.14165@uwasa.fi> <1990Jan10.193337.28096@agate.berkeley.edu> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <1990Jan10.193337.28096@agate.berkeley.edu> cliff@violet.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost) writes: | I'm very much in favor of creating binaries and sources groups, for all | the obvious reasons. Be sure you have a moderator and assistant. Without a moderator you will have problems with too much, too little, and no quality control, and with it you will have a vast wasteland when the moderator goes away - witness comp.binaries.ibm.pc and comp.sources.unix, both of which are dead in the water. c.b.i.p is so dead we can't even get a new moderator elected. I ran the vote the last time, but wanted to be a candidate this time, so I could offer mail/uucp/bbs access for missed postings, but no election was ever held, and I suspect the group should be removed. Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion Summary: Expires: References: <1001@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <1990Jan12.172907.21216@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <1990Jan12.172907.21216@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> zweig@cs.uiuc.edu writes: | | | >Re Hagelstein's coherent cold fusion: | > It is a general rule of physics that if you have a number of | >bosons (photons, phonons etc.) then a system which wants to emit such | >bosons will tend to emit them more quickly. This 'simulated emission' | >is how lasers work. | >L(ight) A(mplification by) S(imulated) E(mmission >of) R(adiation). | > Rolfe G. Petschek | | That's "Stimulated" not "Simulated". It matters. | | -Johnny Spellschek Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Why did Solar Max fall but space junk stays up? Summary: Expires: References: <9001150030.AA00474@aristotle.jpl.nasa.gov> <1990Jan15.165640.29829@utzoo.uucp> <15100@bfmny0.UU.NET> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <15100@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: | Controlled de-orbit lets them aim at their own territory and so minimize | the security issues; exploding them first was designed to make sure no | large chunks survive re-entry for ANYONE to find. Are the manned satellites rigged for self destruct, too? This could sooner or later lead to Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: SSX: Space Ship Experimental (summary) Summary: Expires: References: <9001121009.AA01853@zit.cigy.> <1146@v7fs1.UUCP> <1990Jan17.193148.15540@utzoo.uucp> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: There seems to be room for a conceptual "middle ground" between the SSTO and multistage systems, that being a single vehicle with multiple propulsion systems. Let me throw out one illustration of the principle. Start with a vehicle similar to a 747. Replace the engines with higher performance units, such as the new GE models. Use the jets to climb to (ballpark) 50000 ft. At that point switch to a rocket system to provide kick to orbit. A jet plane is much more efficient than a rocket, since it uses O2 from the atmosphere and doesn't have to lift it, and because the lift comes from an airfoil rather than just raw thrust downward. In terms of getting a load to 30-60000 ft the plane is far better. What it doesn't do is get the load to any major fraction of orbital velocity or altitude. The major saving is in the ability to get above most of the atmosphere, reducing loss to drag. A side benefit is that it becomes practical to launch from high latitude and fly closer to the equator before doing the orbital burn. I have read too many contradictory guesses about the actual savings due to this to feel comfortable about quoting them, but I think that use of the best new engines, such as the GE or rumored P&W, would allow something in the order of 50% increase in the payload to orbit for a given total takeoff weight. I have seen number as high as 300%, but I can't justify them. Obviously if you go the first step beyond that you postulate a vehicle which still flies at supersonic speed. My first example, using almost existing technology, did not assume that the airfoils would be setup to work past 650mph or so (current 747 design). If you design and build the vehicle from scratch it could be designed ----- News saved at 24 Jan 90 18:13:02 GMT In article <139@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes: | | Why do we need comp.shareware? I asked myself that, too. | The problem arises that sites, whether trunk, branch or leaf | nodes, have no choice as to whether they carry shareware or not. | Remember, USENET is a non-commercial network. The existing source | and binary groups carry shareware and PD software intermixed. This is not untrue, although in truth there has not been such a flood of shareware as to be a notible fraction of the PC group, at least. | | I believe that *choice* is the important part of this. A site | should be free to choose whether to carry shareware or not. The | only way to achieve this is to create a dedicated shareware | newsgroup (or groups). Well, when you say "the only way..." you are bound to find a lot of people who have more ideas than you do. When Rahul and I get the logistics clear I will be the new moderator of c.b.i.p. Since no one else offered the election was cancelled, and now that I have some personal committments behind me I can start. One of the thing which will be done is to label every posting which is shareware, either in the title or keywords. Another alternative would be to move shareware to the alt groups. We could also just stop carrying it. So there are at least three other things we can do to avoid having sites burdened by sharware. | I therefore propose the creation of | comp.shareware. One group for PC, Mac, Atari, Amiga? And what of some of the shareware in source which has come around from time to time? If you are going to propose one group for all shareware you will have a landfill which no one will have the time to explore. | Authors of shareware should post only to this | group, with a notice in comp.newprod drawing it to the attention | of subscribers who do not or cannot read comp.shareware. Most shareware on the net is not posted by the authors. | | Note | that a corollary of this is that software posted to other groups | is to be regarded as freeware - shareware writers should beware! Do you propose that te obligations of shareware shall be removed by posting (usually by a non-author) to another group? | | Please send your votes to me, pete@tcom.stc.co.uk. Please follow net protocol for votes and don't waste time. See below. | I am anxious to comply with the latest net protocol with regard | to this vote. If I have made technical errors please let me know | and I'll take whatever action is necessary. You have some glaring errors in protocol here: you are supposed to issue a call for discussion first and then wait until it dies down, or at least until it begin to repeat. In this case, since there are likely to be people beside me who think that a single group would be useless, a discussion and possibly separate vote on the name conventions is needed. Since source and binary groups are moderated, your proposal should include the names of the moderators for all groups you propose to create, including the duties of the moderator. ________________________________________________________________ As much as I may have sounded as though I'm against the idea, I don't really care much as long as it's done right. I don't think you have put proper thought into what you really want, but that doesn't mean that I will oppose a revised proposal. You have identified a condition, some may agree that it's a problem even if I don't. The usual title for a discussion is something like CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.binaries.shareware.XXX ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ group or heirarchy name -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me Newsgroups: poster Subject: Re: Proposed New Newsgroup - comp.shareware Summary: Expires: References: <139@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> Sender: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Keywords: In article <139@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes: | | Why do we need comp.shareware? I asked myself that, too. | The problem arises that sites, whether trunk, branch or leaf | nodes, have no choice as to whether they carry shareware or not. | Remember, USENET is a non-commercial network. The existing source | and binary groups carry shareware and PD software intermixed. This is not untrue, although in truth there has not been such a flood of shareware as to be a notible fraction of the PC group, at least. | | I believe that *choice* is the important part of this. A site | should be free to choose whether to carry shareware or not. The | only way to achieve this is to create a dedicated shareware | newsgroup (or groups). Well, when you say "the only way..." you are bound to find a lot of people who have more ideas than you do. When Rahul and I get the logistics clear I will be the new moderator of c.b.i.p. Since no one else offered the election was cancelled, and now that I have some personal committments behind me I can start. One of the thing which will be done is to label every posting which is shareware, either in the title or keywords. Another alternative would be to move shareware to the alt groups. We could also just stop carrying it. So there are at least three other things we can do to avoid having sites burdened by sharware. | I therefore propose the creation of | comp.shareware. One group for PC, Mac, Atari, Amiga? And what of some of the shareware in source which has come around from time to time? If you are going to propose one group for all shareware you will have a landfill which no one will have the time to explore. | Authors of shareware should post only to this | group, with a notice in comp.newprod drawing it to the attention | of subscribers who do not or cannot read comp.shareware. Most shareware on the net is not posted by the authors. | | Note | that a corollary of this is that software posted to other groups | is to be regarded as freeware - shareware writers should beware! Do you propose that te obligations of shareware shall be removed by posting (usually by a non-author) to another group? | | Please send your votes to me, pete@tcom.stc.co.uk. Please follow net protocol for votes and don't waste time. See below. | I am anxious to comply with the latest net protocol with regard | to this vote. If I have made technical errors please let me know | and I'll take whatever action is necessary. You have some glaring errors in protocol here: you are supposed to issue a call for discussion first and then wait until it dies down, or at least until it begin to repeat. In this case, since there are likely to be people beside me who think that a single group would be useless, a discussion and possibly separate vote on the name conventions is needed. Since source and binary groups are moderated, your proposal should include the names of the moderators for all groups you propose to create, including the duties of the moderator. ________________________________________________________________ As much as I may have sounded as though I'm against the idea, I don't really care much as long as it's done right. I don't think you have put proper thought into what you really want, but that doesn't mean that I will oppose a revised proposal. You have identified a condition, some may agree that it's a problem even if I don't. The usual title for a discussion is something like CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.binaries.shareware.XXX ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ group or heirarchy name -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) (01/25/90)
1) first, you should call for a discussion of the topic 2) second, the call for discussion (and later for a vote) should be posted in the moderated group news.announce.newgroups 3) third, no generic shareware group is acceptable that is not also subdivided by computer type (ibmpc, mac, amiga, etc) why go back to the stone-ages? 4) most shareware is not posted by the authors; to assume, therefore, that software posted in all "other groups" can be considered FreeWare, is plainly absurd and has no legal base. 5) I'm not against humouring a few leave-nodes who don't want to be burdened by carrying shareware, but I wonder if this is really a problem that would not be better solved by having those sites not import any sources, period, but get them on disk from the Boston Computer Society or the local club. Maybe what is needed is a moderator for all sources-groups (if they do not exist already) and a priority scheme that would put shareware and demos at the end of the queue, possibly never to get posted if the traffic in Free- ware is heavy enough. But, quite honestly, a lot of FreeWare is not worth the bandwidth, but a lot of ShareWare is!!
lar@pc.usl.edu (Robert Lane A.) (01/25/90)
In article <139@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes:
The problem arises that sites, whether trunk, branch or leaf
nodes, have no choice as to whether they carry shareware or not.
Remember, USENET is a non-commercial network. The existing source
and binary groups carry shareware and PD software intermixed.
If the problem is that shareware is too commercial, shouldn't the new
group be placed under biz? How about biz.software? Does something
already exist on biz that could be used for this purpose? Otherwise,
I would suggest that the logical place would be under comp.sources or
comp.binaries.
I believe that *choice* is the important part of this. A site
should be free to choose whether to carry shareware or not. The
only way to achieve this is to create a dedicated shareware
newsgroup (or groups).
Does anyone have any idea how much potential shareware traffic exists?
Would a new newsgroup be justified?
Note that a corollary of this is that software posted to other groups
is to be regarded as freeware - shareware writers should beware!
You mean if someone posts a piece of software that I happen to have
acquired from some other source and paid the shareware fee for, I'm
entitled to a refund of the fee? I would think not. It should be up
to the moderators, if anyone, to keep shareware out of the other
groups. If a group is not moderated, then forget it. In that case no
amount of net.legislation will entirely stop shareware posts.
Please send your votes to me, pete@tcom.stc.co.uk.
WHOA! We need some time to exercise our flame thr--er--discuss this
before a vote. Take a look at the newsgroup creation guidelines.
Just my $0.02. Followups to news.groups.
Lane lar@usl.edu ...!texbell!rouge!larjak9213@helios.TAMU.EDU (John Kane) (01/25/90)
In article <LAR.90Jan24142106@pc.usl.edu> lar@pc.usl.edu (Robert Lane A.) writes: >In article <139@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes: > The problem arises that sites, whether trunk, branch or leaf > nodes, have no choice as to whether they carry shareware or not. > Remember, USENET is a non-commercial network. The existing source > and binary groups carry shareware and PD software intermixed. > >If the problem is that shareware is too commercial, shouldn't the new >group be placed under biz? How about biz.software? Does something >already exist on biz that could be used for this purpose? Otherwise, >I would suggest that the logical place would be under comp.sources or >comp.binaries. > >Lane lar@usl.edu ...!texbell!rouge!lar A similar such discussion is occurring on comp.sys.mac right now about demo/crippleware postings. I think that I may get enough feedback in the c.s.m group to pull a call for discussion out. What is being proposed is a new group, comp.binaries.mac.demo for items that are demo/crippleware. I could see the addition of a comp.binaries.mac.shareware if enough interest is generated. The complaint, at least in c.s.m, is not about shareware products, but about products that are more commercial in nature, ie. the demos and crippled products that have been hitting c.b.m lately. It tends to slow down distribution of really neat, new freeware when it is caught behind an 11 part demo program. If I see enough discussion for a c.b.m.{demo,shareware}, I will probably initiate the call for discussion early next week. John Arthur Kane, Systems Analyst, Microcomputer Support and Training Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843 (409) 845-9999 jak9213@helios.tamu.edu profs: x043jk@tamvm1.tamu.edu
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (01/25/90)
I agree it should be called biz.shareware. Subgrouping within the noncommercial comp.* Usenet core is not sufficient. -- "Nature loves a vacuum. Digital \O@/ Tom Neff doesn't." -- DEC sales letter /@O\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (01/25/90)
It is probably quite important to distinguish adequately between true shareware, and crippled/demoware, before deciding whether the non-commercial requirements of USENet permit/require such a group. With a couple of notable exceptions (PC Write, Procomm) that have been commercially viable, most shareware is in no real sense commercial software. Instead, the shareware notice in a piece of software is the expression of a dream by the author that his/her efforts will somehow be adequately rewarded although they did not create a commercially viable product. The experience of those waiting by the mailbox for the checks to start rolling in has been pretty bleak (speaking both from net reportage and from personal experience), with the above noted exceptions. Somehow, to me, those exceptional cases are analogous to the folks at the top of a pyramid scheme - yes, it is true that somebody, somewhere gets rich, but for me, it is jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today. I think, given the low likelihood of actually violating the non-commercial requirement of the net (noticing in particular that shareware notices in software are by their nature non-enforcible, so that recipients of the software are legally, though perhaps not ethically, within their rights to refuse to pay for the software while continuing to use it), that such postings can safely continue in the machine specific source or binary newsgroups in which they now occur. In contrast, cripple/demoware is not, in purpose, software, but is instead _advertising_ for software. That the advertising takes the form of an executable piece of software does not modify its essential nature, which _does_ pretty directly violate USENet guidelines. I suggest that this, like CLARINet, needs to be isolated so that those sites prohibited by, e.g., government funding regulations from carrying commercial materials will have an easy way to exclude them. (My personal preference would be not to allow them at all, but I realize that there are now many subscription public access USENet sites that are _not_ under non-commercial rules, and to which the commercial materials may well be a welcome additional way to attract subscribers, so I'm not terribly interested in making my preferences net.law _in this case_!) -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan) Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile. -> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-
carlo@electro.UUCP (Carlo Sgro) (01/25/90)
In article <4136@helios.TAMU.EDU> jak9213@helios.tamu.edu (John Kane) writes: >If I see enough discussion for a c.b.m.{demo,shareware}, I will probably >initiate the call for discussion early next week. I think that, if shareware is to be separated from freeware, this would be the way to go rather than going for comp.binaries.shareware (or anything that would lump all shareware together). Any general shareware group would become a mess rather quickly. -- Carlo Sgro DIS-CLAIM-R: Everything within 10 feet watmath!watcgl!electro!carlo of you is fictitious.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (01/26/90)
In article <10619@saturn.ADS.COM> xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes: | | It is probably quite important to distinguish adequately between true | shareware, and crippled/demoware, before deciding whether the | non-commercial requirements of USENet permit/require such a group. I think this is a reasonable statement. Distributing a product and asking for payment seems to be a reasonable tradeoff. Commercial sites carry the net because the value of the information exceeds the cost. Our company uses some shareware products, and probably will in the future. In general there is no interest in a demo version, since it does not allow proper evaluation of the software. I'm not sure that a separate group is needed, but I'm not violently opposed, either. I like getting shareware on the net, and via ftp. It has a legitimate business application in many cases. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (01/26/90)
pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes: > [some stuff regarding shareware that is obviously his opinion. But he proposes the creation of a new group for shareware. I would think this might be worthy of a discussion before voting immediately as Peter suggests. Further, I would suggest the creation of two new newsgroups. comp.shareware.d - for discussion about shareware comp.shareware.progs - (or some similiarily named newsgroup) for the actual distribution of shareware programs > >Please send your votes to me, pete@tcom.stc.co.uk. You can say >what you like in the body of the message so long as the subject >contains the word SHAREWARE and a yes or no vote for or against >the creation of the group. The closing date for the vote is 3 >weeks hence, February 13th 1990. > -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
root@robecdc.UUCP (Super user) (02/03/90)
In article <1181@utoday.UUCP> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > > pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes: >> > [some stuff regarding shareware that is obviously his opinion. But > he proposes the creation of a new group for shareware. I would think > this might be worthy of a discussion before voting immediately as > Peter suggests. > > Further, I would suggest the creation of two new newsgroups. > comp.shareware.d - for discussion about shareware > comp.shareware.progs - (or some similiarily named newsgroup) for the > actual distribution of shareware programs >> >>Please send your votes to me, pete@tcom.stc.co.uk. You can say >>what you like in the body of the message so long as the subject >>contains the word SHAREWARE and a yes or no vote for or against >>the creation of the group. The closing date for the vote is 3 >>weeks hence, February 13th 1990. >> SHAREWARE is as has been said before COMMERCIAL. Have we forgotten who and what we are? This ????net exists for the FREE flow of information between like-minded individuals. This is not an arena for you to make a dollar (yen, pound, franc, etc.) Make you announcements in comp.*, comp.newprod, etc. if anyone's interested they will call you, or not as they see fit. Thank you K-MART shoppers for participating in tonight's blue light special. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -William A. Sneed uucp: ...!pyrdc!robecdc!ghost -Robec Dist. voice: (703) 631-4800 -Manassas, Va fax: (703) 631-4806 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Brain fried -- Core dumped ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The words you have just read are strictly my own and no one else's. They in no way should be construed as anything but my own personal opinion. Besides no one else would lay claim to them. :-) :-) :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/08/90)
In article <74@robecdc.UUCP> root@robecdc.UUCP (Super user) writes: > >SHAREWARE is as has been said before COMMERCIAL. Have we forgotten who >and what we are? This ????net exists for the FREE flow of information >between like-minded individuals. This is not an arena for you to make >a dollar (yen, pound, franc, etc.) Make you announcements in comp.*, >comp.newprod, etc. if anyone's interested they will call you, or not >as they see fit. > For me, personally, I've not made a penny on UseNet -- and my postings here are not for that intent. I make my money on site licenses of my code, and comercial distribution thereof. However, when you tell me that *you* don't commercialy benefit (as in gaining information that you exploit by means of getting a higher salary, etc.), *then* I can start to listen to you about how the net is not commercialized. Until then, it's merely a matter of degree. You see, this is an arena that *you* can't dictate, either. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"