carlton@masscomp.UUCP (Carlton Hommel) (02/11/86)
net.sources.d seems to get discussed in net.news.group every 9 months.
The main objection to it is that sites archive net.sources, which gives
them net.sources.bugs but not net.wanted.sources.
I feel it is time to bite the bullet. net.sources currently is not worth
archiving. Those sites still wasting disk space on net.sources should
fix their software. Thus, I also propose that net.wanted.sources should
be renamed net.sources.wanted.
An automatic monthly posting should go out on net.sources, similar to the
net.general posting. It does seem to have cut down on random noise on
net.general; perhaps it could do the same for net.sources.
I have been one of those "little Hitlers," fighting the secret war to keep
net.sources pure. Its like spitting into the wind - even with rn's
automatic inclusion of the reply message, and uupath finding the shortest
path back to them.
Another software solution would be to have some backbone sites add a
Followup-to: net.sources.d
line to every article in their spool directory.
What follows the .signature break is the "little Hitler" birdie that I have
been sending out to misusers.
Carl Hommel
...!masscomp!carlton
--
This reply is about your recent posting to the net.sources
newsgroup. I believe that your posting was inappropriate for the
stated purpose of the newsgroup: publishing source code and
documentation. Requests for copies of source code should be posted
in net.wanted.sources. Bug fixes and enhancements to already-posted
code should be submitted to net.sources.bugs. Requests for
clarification of posted items should be directed *by mail* to the
author(s) of the software in question.
If you have not already done so, read the items in the newsgroup
net.announce.newusers. If you have read those articles, please read
them again. It is very clearly stated in a number of places that
net.sources is *not* for discussion or requests. You are being rude
by not observing established net etiquette for net.sources. You
also should consider cancelling your article.
Thank you,
<<name>>levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (02/13/86)
<Oh oh here it comes. Watch out boy, it'll chew you up! \ Oh oh here it comes. The LINE EATER! [Line eater]> In article <875@masscomp.UUCP>, carlton@masscomp.UUCP (Carlton Hommel) writes: >net.sources.d seems to get discussed in net.news.group every 9 months. >The main objection to it is that sites archive net.sources, which gives >them net.sources.bugs but not net.wanted.sources. > >I feel it is time to bite the bullet. net.sources currently is not worth >archiving. Your opinion only of course. You cannot make that decision for many thousands of sites across the board. Some do NOT get mod.sources as a newsgroup and net.sources is better than nothing. >Those sites still wasting disk space on net.sources should >fix their software. Y'mean, rmgroup net.sources I'm sure >Thus, I also propose that net.wanted.sources should >be renamed net.sources.wanted. > >An automatic monthly posting should go out on net.sources, similar to the >net.general posting. It does seem to have cut down on random noise on >net.general; perhaps it could do the same for net.sources. > >I have been one of those "little Hitlers," fighting the secret war to keep >net.sources pure. Its like spitting into the wind - even with rn's >automatic inclusion of the reply message, and uupath finding the shortest >path back to them. Down with Hitlers > >Another software solution would be to have some backbone sites add a > Followup-to: net.sources.d >line to every article in their spool directory. > >What follows the .signature break is the "little Hitler" birdie that I have >been sending out to misusers. > > Carl Hommel > ...!masscomp!carlton > >-- > [rude note about 'netiquette'] I propose that indirect references to works that have been sent to mod.sources be allowed in net.sources EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT THEMSELVES SOURCE CODE. If you wanna be picky, it's "documentation" -- documentation of where to get the code, such as oversize things like TVX which are 100% guaranteed to get lost in net.sources. People who don't get mod.sources as a newsgroup can still send mail to the moderator asking for copies. (Perhaps manpages only could be posted along with a message saying where to get the code itself from the mod.sources moderator.) Better yet, why not have a weekly posting of the mod.sources archive list in net.sources? This was proposed before and I have heard zilch since. 'Twill much better satisfy those who don't get the mod.sources as a group and who don't feel like periodically bothering the mod.sources moderator for a current list of archives. Even those who DO get mod.sources might benefit. -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, vax135}!ttrdc!levy
jpn@teddy.UUCP (02/14/86)
>>An automatic monthly posting should go out on net.sources, similar to the >>net.general posting. It does seem to have cut down on random noise on >>net.general; perhaps it could do the same for net.sources. > >I propose that indirect references to works that have been sent to mod.sources >be allowed in net.sources EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT THEMSELVES SOURCE CODE. >Better yet, why not have a weekly posting of the mod.sources archive list in >net.sources? ... Even those who DO get mod.sources might benefit. I already post the Index of the mod.sources archive once a month on mod.sources. If there is no great objection, I will post an (abbreviated) copy of this document to net.sources as well (perhaps only the NEW postings?). Another Index is due this weekend (The 15'th). John P. Nelson, Moderator, mod.sources (decvax!genrad!panda!jpn seismo!harvard!wjh12!panda!jpn)
avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (02/14/86)
Why don't people get mod.sources? If net.sources is justifiable,
mod.sources certainly is 10 times more so. (And no, I am not the
moderator -- John Nelson is.)
Keep in mind, the people who are complaining the most are those who
remember when net.sources was worth archiving. It is not now because it
is mostly filled with "wanted" requests and repostings. When the requests
outnumber the sources posted (which they have) the group becomes unusable.
By the way, mod.sources (and for goodness sakes have mod.sources sent
to you instead of net.sources if there is a problem with getting both)
is reviewed for non-sources, repetition (such as 35 different ways to
lock your terminal without logging out -- the easiest way), and --
possibly -- blatent stealing of source code. Not for style, etc.
Egos will be protected. I am sure Mr. Nelson is very sensitive.
--
Fred @ DEC Ultrix Applications Center
{decvax,seismo,cbosgd}!decuac!avolio avolio@decuac.DEC.COMcccjack@ucdavis.UUCP (Jack Ogawa) (03/02/86)
> >>An automatic monthly posting should go out on net.sources, similar to the > >>net.general posting. It does seem to have cut down on random noise on > >>net.general; perhaps it could do the same for net.sources. > > > >I propose that indirect references to works that have been sent to mod.sources > >be allowed in net.sources EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT THEMSELVES SOURCE CODE. > >Better yet, why not have a weekly posting of the mod.sources archive list in > >net.sources? ... Even those who DO get mod.sources might benefit. > > > I already post the Index of the mod.sources archive once a month on > mod.sources. If there is no great objection, I will post an (abbreviated) > copy of this document to net.sources as well (perhaps only the NEW postings?). > Another Index is due this weekend (The 15'th). > > John P. Nelson, Moderator, mod.sources > (decvax!genrad!panda!jpn seismo!harvard!wjh12!panda!jpn) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***