webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP (05/27/87)
In article <3113@soma.bcm.tmc.edu>, usenet@soma.bcm.tmc.edu (USENET maintenance) writes: > In article <229@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes: > >It hardly matters that 90%+ of the mod.sources code works (although I doubt > >that that is true considering how little `working code' I have seen > >over the years). > If we get so little `working code', why bother having sources newsgroups? Because people that deal with computers for a living often like to show off code that they particularly like. Fortunately, these same people can usually judge these kinds of postings and factor out those they are interested in. If a reader of a sources group is not capable of writing/maintaining a piece of code that they get from those groups, then they are doing a very foolish thing when they run it. It will be a long time before computers can safely be used by people that don't have the time and ability to check the code out for themselves. Moderating a sources group just heightens the illusion that it is `safe' to run programs that one doesn't understand. > I find the moderation processes of comp.sources.unix a boon. You do not. > Start up a net.sources of your own and distribute it. Rutgers can probably > afford to allow you the pleasure of the endeavor. :-) Actually, there was an announcement in news.groups from someone at ihnp4 a while ago saying that they were trying to do just that. However currently the people at Rutgers are not recieving it since although both sites are backbone, they do not speak directly to each other. Personally, instead of creating a funny newsgroup, I would rather set up a distributed mailing list and then when it grows sufficiently petition to have it turned into a newsgroup (the non-standard newsgroup approach makes it very difficult to connect all the interested parties as well as not giving the uninterested a chance to see the error of their ways). If anyone is interested in such a mailing list, send me mail and I will start things rolling (which would include making sure that the local systems staff will permit the mail to flow). > >[comp.sources.unix archive] is certainly an important service. > >However, it has nothing to do with whether or not a group is moderated. > >The net is in desparate need of archivers. > Agreed, but I'd have a hard time justifying disk space to archive junk > (like appears in the old net.sources) while I could probably justify space > for comp.sources.unix since there is some element of "quality" there. I would think one would use tape to archive `junk'. Due to the usual random human problems, the current moderator of the sources groups has significantly reduced the bandwidth of his group. However, this has not impacted quality at all. > You seem to argue that quality is second to quanity. I argue that I would prefer to make my own `quality' judgements. If you want me to make yours for you also, just let me know :-) Given that I am making the `quality' judgements on what I see, the net would be best served by concentrating on bandwidth issues as simply bits/second and not as matters of ``make sure that the groups I read get saved and let everyone else's go to Hades''. In a previous message (on news.stargate), I have indicated how things could be handled properly with current resources. ------------------ BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis!webber)
billw@wolf.UUCP (06/03/87)
In article <243@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes:
/ If a reader of a sources group is not capable
/ of writing/maintaining a piece of code that they get from those
/ groups, then they are doing a very foolish thing when they run it.
Hmm.. guess we better get rid of the news 2.11 distribution, I sure as hell
don't understand it...
--
Bill Wisner
..{sdcsvax,ihnp4}!jack!wolf!billw