tim@banyan.UUCP (Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan) (01/09/90)
I am 100% FOR the creation of comp.binaries.os2 but 100% AGAINST having it moderated. Anyone who has been watching the current situation in comp.binaries.ibm.pc has seen just how much time and resources it takes to actually be a moderator of a high-volume binaries newsgroup and there aren't a lot of people who plain have the time and resources. My main reason for being against moderation is the bottleneck it creates. Rahul has a 4-6 week backup of binary postings due to testing and packing delays. Sites that don't want to handle the traffic of an unmoderated binaries group are free not to carry it. Tim Henrion Banyan Systems Inc. tim@banyan.com --or-- ...!bu.edu!banyan!tim
hv@uwasa.fi (Harri Valkama LAKE) (01/10/90)
In article <676@banyan.UUCP> tim@banyan.UUCP (Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan) writes: >I am 100% FOR the creation of comp.binaries.os2 but 100% AGAINST >having it moderated. Anyone who has been watching the current >situation in comp.binaries.ibm.pc has seen just how much time >and resources it takes to actually be a moderator of a high-volume >binaries newsgroup and there aren't a lot of people who plain >have the time and resources. My main reason for being against >moderation is the bottleneck it creates. Rahul has a 4-6 week >backup of binary postings due to testing and packing delays. Oh no. Do you take responsibility if someone then send some viruses and other little creatures (like bugs and so on)? Definitely there is need for moderator. We shouldn't take c.p.i.b and Rahul Dhesi as an example of NO-NO but as an example which should take as a warning - as a situation which should be taken care of. They only let it go too far. -- Harri Valkama (hv@uwasa.fi) anon. ftp site (128.214.12.3)
cliff@violet.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost) (01/11/90)
I'm very much in favor of creating binaries and sources groups, for all
the obvious reasons.
Thanks,
Cliff Frost <cliff@berkeley.edu>
Central Computing Services
University of California, Berkeleybagron@cs.vu.nl (Rene Baart) (01/11/90)
Here's another person in favour of starting a seperate newsgroups for binaries (comp.binaries.os2) and sources (comp.sources.os2) Dick Groenhof Free University of Amsterdam The Netherlands E-MAIL: bagron@cs.vu.nl
bjaspan@athena.mit.edu (Barr3y Jaspan) (01/12/90)
I am in favor of starting the separate newsgroups comp.binaries.os2 and comp.sources.os2. Barry Jaspan, MIT-Project Athena bjaspan@athena.mit.edu
thakulin@hila.hut.fi (Timo T Hakulinen) (01/12/90)
Metoo for comp.binaries.os2 and comp.sources.os2. Timo
CCMK@latvax8.lat.oz (Mark Kosten - Computer Centre, La Trobe Uni.) (01/12/90)
Count my vote for comp.binaries.os2. I think comp.sources.os2 may be optional at this time, given the fairly infrequent number of postings, and that sources and binaries tend to be posted in one archive anyway. Mark Kosten, phone: +61 3 479-2767 Computer Centre, ACSnet/UUCP/Bitnet: ccmk@latvax8.lat.oz La Trobe University, X25: 234730008 (ccmk@latrobe.edu.au) Bundoora, Victoria 3083 Australia
own@castle.ed.ac.uk (O Morgan) (01/12/90)
I can't see any disadvantages with having a seperate group for binaries and since it will make life easier for some sites, why not? Incidentally, for the person with the "over-active C compiler", the binaries are much appreciated. Thanks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- O.Morgan Edinburgh School of Agriculture E.Mail: Kings Buildings O.Morgan@uk.ac.ed Edinburgh, Scotland --------------------------------------------------------------------------
peggy@pyr.gatech.EDU (Cris Simpson) (01/12/90)
Given that the overall volume is not that high, and that many sites do not receive binary groups, could we hold off on creation of a binaries group by STRONGLY ENCOURAGING posting of sources instead of the binaries? For one thing, I suspect that sources may compress to be smaller than the corresponding binaries. The other is that the sources are MUCH more useful. cris
fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) (01/13/90)
I am also in favor of an os2.binaries group. There must be people developing
the same kinds of useful PD resources in OS/2 that have been available
on DOS for some time. A binaries group, moderated or not, is a great forum
for distribution.
--
Frederick F. Freeland Jr. "Of all the things I've lost, Microsoft Corporation I miss my mind the most!" One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052 (206) 882-8080 internet: fredf@,microsoft.beaver.washington.EDU arpanet: fredf%microsoft@uw-beaver.ARPA
uucp: {decvax,decwrl,intelca,sco,sun,trsvax,uunet,uw-beaver}!microsoft!fredf Opinions expressed over this signature are my OWN and not those of my employer! kulokari@cc.helsinki.fi (01/13/90)
For me it is okay to have separate groups for sources and binaries. But why bother? There has not been a lot of discussion. The interesting traffic in comp.os.os2 *is* the sources and binaries. Why replace one lively group by two lively and one quiet? If you want to yak about OS/2 vs. Unix vs. Mac, isn't comp.sys.ibmpc enough? After all, OS/2 is just another operating system for the (high-end) ibmpc's.
eric@egsner.cirr.com (Eric Schnoebelen) (01/13/90)
In article <1990Jan9.220230.14165@uwasa.fi> hv@uwasa.fi (Harri Valkama LAKE) writes: - In article <676@banyan.UUCP> tim@banyan.UUCP (Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan) writes: - >I am 100% FOR the creation of comp.binaries.os2 but 100% AGAINST - >having it moderated. Anyone who has been watching the current - >situation in comp.binaries.ibm.pc has seen just how much time - >and resources it takes to actually be a moderator of a high-volume - >binaries newsgroup and there aren't a lot of people who plain - >have the time and resources. - - Definitely there is need for moderator. We shouldn't take c.p.i.b - and Rahul Dhesi as an example of NO-NO but as an example which should - take as a warning - as a situation which should be taken care of. - They only let it go too far. I would be more worried that an unmoderated comp.binaries.os2 would become what comp.binaries.ibm.pc was before it was moderated. Think back two years, and remember what it was like. Very few binaries postings, entirely too much discussion, several commercial programs being posted to the net (without permission), a very low signal to noise ratio (lots of noise, very little useful information) caused it to be considered the biggest bandwidth waster of the net. As I remember, c.b.i.p was nearly rmgrouped because it consumed too many resources for, what was felt, very little gain. Might I suggest that comp.binaries.os2 (and perhaps comp.binaries.ibm.pc) be handled much the way that comp.sources.misc is handled. No real testing of the software, just a controlled and standardized method of distribution. (if I have comp.sources.misc's charter wrong, I apologize.) I am of the belief that sources groups and binaries groups must be moderated, in order to insure quality and to control the traffic. -- Eric Schnoebelen eric@egsner.cirr.com schnoebe@convex.com "Ford, If I were to ask where in the hell we are, would I regret it?" -- Aurther Dent, HHG
oppenhei@umd5.umd.edu (Richard Oppenheimer) (01/13/90)
I also favor a sperate newsgroup for sources and binaries. Richard Oppenheimer oppenhei@umd5.umd.edu Computer Science Center University of Maryland, College Park
herald.usask.ca.UUCP (Kevin &,,4826,6535185) (01/14/90)
I would also like a COMP.BINARIES.OS2 and COMP.SOURCES.OS2. The
reason is because we are soon going to connect the FIDONET OS/2
newsgroup to the uucp OS/2 newsgroup and make one large newsgroup out
of the two of them. Fidonet however does not like uuencoded binary
files (because most people on it pay to transfer the stuff with their
own money, instead of relying on the generosity of their company #8-)
I have a fix in that we can configure the maximum size of a message
forwarded between the two systems. Right now it's 16K which will
filter out all uuencoded binary messages > 16K. However, we will
still get tail ends of multi-segment uuencoded files, etc. A separate
binaries group would solve this problem.
I also would like a moderated binaries group. The current procedure has
the following problems:
1) We get multiple postings of the same program (Like MicroEMACS) from
different people.
2) There is no consistant way for archiving the files. Some use PKZIP,
some use ZOO, some have headers and footers on the messages so we can
use a script to combine the pieces together, others randomly split
the uuencoded file with no headers.
I suggest that we have a moderator to solve these problems.
COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC comes to mind as a good example. Raul had some
problems with the shear volume of stuff he had to go through, but the
actual postings themselves were always done quite well, allowing me to
use a script to unpack the messages in a consitant manner, etc.
- Kevin Lowey @ 1:140/43 - LOWEY@SASK.USASK.CA - ...!alberta!dvinci!loweyifarqhar@mqccsunc.mqcc.mq.OZ (Ian Farquhar) (01/15/90)
I am also in favor of comp.binaries.os2. I am also in favor of comp.sources.os2, as it would be certainly handy to have sources for some of these programs. | Ian Farquhar | Phone : (02) 805-7420 (STD) | | Microcomputer Support | (612) 805-7420 (ISD) | | Office of Computing Services | Fax : (02) 805-7433 (STD) | | Macquarie University NSW 2109 | (612) 805-7433 (ISD) | | Australia | Also : 805-7205 | "A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist." Sir Humphrey Appleby (Patron Saint of Public Servants) Yes, Minister. Yes, Prime Minister. +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | Ian Farquhar | Phone : (02) 805-7420 (STD) | | Microcomputer Support | (612) 805-7420 (ISD) | | Office of Computing Services | Fax : (02) 805-7433 (STD) | | Macquarie University NSW 2109 | (612) 805-7433 (ISD) | | Australia | Also : 805-7205 | +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+ D
herald.usask.ca.UUCP (Kevin &,,4826,6535185) (01/16/90)
From article <9778@pyr.gatech.EDU>, by peggy@pyr.gatech.EDU (Cris Simpson): > > Given that the overall volume is not that high, and that > many sites do not receive binary groups, could we hold off on creation > of a binaries group by STRONGLY ENCOURAGING posting of sources instead > of the binaries? For one thing, I suspect that sources may compress > to be smaller than the corresponding binaries. The other is that > the sources are MUCH more useful. This all assumes that I am an OS/2 developer. I'm not. I haven't got a compiler anywhere near my OS/2 system. I do use uudecode, and the unarchivers though. I have no gripes against source, but I don't want to have to find someone to compile it for me. Also, some people have suggested using COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC. I don't mind that, however whoever suggested it obviously hasn't noticed that there is already a one month backlog there, and the moderator has quit because he doesn't have time to handle the stuff he already has. We can't really start adding things in that newsgroup if that newsgroup has no moderator. - Kevin Lowey @ 1:140/43 - LOWEY@SASK.USASK.CA - ...!alberta!dvinci!lowey
sampa@microsoft.UUCP (Sam PATTON) (01/18/90)
I am in favor of starting the separate newsgroups comp.binaries.os2 and comp.sources.os2. sam patton !Microsoft!sampa
towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Towfigh) (01/20/90)
I support the creation of comp.binaries.os2 and of comp.sources.os2. Mark -- Mark Towfigh, Racal Interlan, Inc. towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM "The Earth is but One Country, and Mankind its Citizens" -- Baha'u'llah
rick@lrark.UUCP (Rick Mobley) (01/23/90)
Me too for comp.binaries.os2 and comp.ibm.os2 -- Ricky L. Mobley, WB5FDP | Mail) ...!uunet!wugate! | CIS: 70505,1157 1800 Sanford Drive #4 | Path) wuarchive!texbell! | PACKET: WB5FDP @ WD5B Little Rock, AR 72207 | ark!lrark!rick | XBBS: (501) 224-9454
rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) (01/23/90)
I vote for a separate newsgroup comp.binaries.os2 but a separate comp.sources.os2 is not needed (I think) because I would like to see sources and binaries of programs posted together to one group in the future (and I will do so). If the creation of c.b.os2 depends on the fact if a moderator can be found and no one wants to do it or no one has the time (probably the case for most of us) or the ressources, c.b.os2 should be created even without a moderator. If c.b.os2 is not created and binaries are still posted to comp.os.os2 the situation is not better. ----------- I got many replies to my article about GNU tools which I have available. I think I will wait posting them until comp.binaries.os2 is created. Many wrote that they don't have even the original sources, so sending the diffs only (as suggested by one person) would not be a good idea. Kai Uwe Rommel Munich rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (01/24/90)
In article <155@lrark.UUCP> rick@lrark.UUCP (Rick Mobley) writes: | Me too for comp.binaries.os2 and comp.ibm.os2 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ??? What would comp.ibm.os2 be for? Do you mean comp.os.os2 for discussion of the operating system itself? I assume that it would go with all of the other os groups (aux, minix, vms, etc). -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
davison@drivax.UUCP (Wayne Davison) (01/26/90)
Kai-Uwe Rommel (rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de) wrote: }I got many replies to my article about GNU tools which I have available. }I think I will wait posting them until comp.binaries.os2 is created. }Many wrote that they don't have even the original sources, so sending }the diffs only (as suggested by one person) would not be a good idea. As the "one person" who suggested posting diffs, lets talk about why I said that. The GNU sources are of general interest to the entire un*x community, as well as other operating systems (with minor modifications). Yet I do not recall ever seeing the GNU sources posted to any of the network's un*x source groups. I have assumed that this is because the software is still evolving, and/or the source is readily available from so many ftp and uucp sources already. Can somone enlighten me on this? If the sources are going to be posted, they should be sent to a high-readership group (such as comp.sources.misc) to get the maximum benefit of sending them all over the net. I'd also prefer to see the source in its "official" state, plus the context diffs that turn it into the OS2/DOS-specific version. One last thing: please make every effort to ensure you have the latest versions before posting. The GNU sources update fairly often. -- Wayne Davison \ /| / /| \/ /| /(_) davison@drivax.UUCP (_)/ |/ /\| / / |/ \ ...!amdahl!drivax!davison
pim@cti-software.nl (Pim Zandbergen) (01/26/90)
rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes: >I vote for a separate newsgroup comp.binaries.os2 but a separate >comp.sources.os2 is not needed (I think) because I would like to see >sources and binaries of programs posted together to one group in the >future (and I will do so). I second that opinion. With MS-DOS, combined sources and binaries are posted to comp.binaries.ibm.pc, as are binaries-only. Sources-only get posted to comp.sources.misc. I think OS/2 sources and binaries should be posted in a similar way: sources to comp.sources.misc and binaries, possibly accompanied by sources, to comp.binaries.os2 -- Pim Zandbergen domain : pim@cti-software.nl CTI Software BV uucp : uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!ctisbv!pim Laan Copes van Cattenburch 70 phone : +31 70 3542302 2585 GD The Hague, The Netherlands fax : +31 70 3512837
kluge@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Oliver Kluge) (02/01/90)
I would like to say Y E S to creating a comp.binaries.os2,
but definitely N O to moderation!
I do not likeee the overhead in time modeartion brings.
Someone has pointed out he would not want to get some
viruses and bugs with the binaries.
Do you really think *any* moderator would (or could) guarantee
that *all* binaries are virus-clean???????????????????????????
Or even bug-free??????????????????????????????????????????????
No operator that exists in reality is capable of that!
So please install comp.binaries.os2, but DON'T moderate it!!!
So long ... Oliver Kluge
--
/ relay.cs.net (CS-NET, ARPA)
kluge%lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de@ - unido.uucp (UUCP)
\ unido.bitnet (BITNET)
TTTTTTUU MUMMMMMMMM Technical University Munich
TTTTTTUU UMMMMMMMMM Department of Mathematics and Computer Sciences SAB
TT UU MU MM MM Laboratory for Parallel Computing
TT UU UM MM MM Arcisstrasse 21
TT UU MU MM MM 8000-Munich 2
TT UUUUUM MM MM Federal Republic of Germany
TT UUUUMU MM MM Vc +49 89 2105-2028, Fax +49 89 2800529
"Why stop now just when I'm hating it?" Marvin, the paranoid android
/ relay.cs.net (CS-NET, ARPA)
kluge%lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de@ - unido.uucp (UUCP)
\ unido.bitnet (BITNET)
TTTTTTUU MUMMMMMMMM Technical University Munich