wampler@unmvax.UUCP (Bruce Wampler) (02/13/86)
Hello, it's me again. First, I would like to apologize to
anyone I may have offended. Maybe I'm still a bit of an anarchist,
and getting mail telling me I don't know what I'm doing and to cancel
my posting (and a form letter at that!) just pushed the wrong button.
I am normally a very sane, calm person.
My secret police posting has generated a lot of reply mail, as you
might have guessed. I tend to agree that there is a bit of a problem
on net.sources, but there are several sides to the story.
First, I re-read all the newuser files, and I don't think it
is as clear as you all seem to think what is or isn't appropriate.
You may have more files than I, but I don't think this is an atypical
site. The guideline for net.sources is "large files such as
sources and documentation" (or words very close to that), and
"no discussion - bugs to net.sources.bugs" (no mention of net.wanted.sources).
If you take that literally, then I guess _small_ sources would be
inappropriate. You get into problems if you take things too
literally. Other articles directed at new users suggest that they
follow the group for two or three weeks to see what the convention
seems to be. That's what _I_ did for all my postings, except I had
been reading net.sources for over a year! Keeping this "follow
group convention" rule, I would say that almost any user, new or
old is following the _current_ convention on net.sources, be that
right or wrong.
It would be nice if occasionally there was some source on
net.sources, which admittedly has been a bit sparse lately. On
the other hand, I've gotten mail back with comments like "net.sources
is one of the few really alive and useful groups left on the net." and
"I thought I was the only one who got flamed for making a posting
I thought was appropriate. I feel better now." One MUST remember
why the net is here (or at least why it is here NOW), and that is
to provide a place to exchange useful information. Clearly, there
is a need (an use) for most of the traffic currently on net.sources.
Where do discussions on public domain software or copyright notices
on software or the like belong? Certainly not net.sources.bugs or
net.wanted.sources. After all the mail I've gotten, and after long
consideration, I would argue that they belong on net.sources - right
where they are! [I would agree that "I didn't get this" or "I want
that" belong in direct mail OR net.wanted.sources (which should be
net.sources.wanted).]
Why? The main complaints about the state of net.sources
seem to me to be coming mostly from administrators who complain
how hard it is to clean out the chaff or have the automatic retention
of source files longer than usual. Maybe so, but I ask you, who are you
serving - the machine or the user? I think the users of net.sources
like the way it works for the most part. It is serving a useful
purpose, and not only that, it is a useful TECHNICAL purpose.
Talk of getting rid of net.sources is missing the point! Look
at the traffic numbers - net.sources is highest (usually because
of one or two postings - my TVX did it in January.) Non-technical
groups such as religion and abortion are the next groups.
Maybe the only answer that will make administrators happy
is to create net.sources.discussion, but I have changed my mind on
that and am against it. I wasn't there, but I can just imagine
the discussion when mod.sources was created: "Too much junk
on net.sources, chaos, no control, etc. we need mod.sources
to get control again." Now it is the same story again, and
the proposal is for net.sources.d. I contend that net.sources
is serving the largest number of users as it stands now.
I agree with the proposals that a monthly announcement would
be helpful. Things like keep discussion short, mail to originators
directly, post to bugs and wanted, use mod.sources (more on that
later), etc. (Also folklore - like don't post anything over
64K, how to build shar files, that sort of thing that I had to
find out the hard way.) As it stands, most users are really following
convention and trying their honest best to not misuse the net.
For all of you worrying about archiving net.sources, maybe
you should only archive mod.sources. Unfortunately, that group
has its own problems. Frist of all, since it is a moderated group,
it sounds to the average net user that you have to have your submission
judged by someone, with a possiblilty of the humiliation of having it
rejected (not all of us have strong egos!). Then you have to figure
out how to contact the moderator. (THAT is not easy to do, by the
way. The average user isn't going to wade through all the groups
just to figure out which one has the list of moderators. And we
all don't work at sites with a small user community where everyone
knows everyone, and it is easy to ask.) It is just much easier
to post to net.sources. And, apparently, there are quite a
few sites that don't get mod.sources!
In conclusion (at last!), I just want to remind the
powers that be (who unfortunately often do act like little Hitlers)
that net.sources is there for the whole user community, not just
those in charge of archiving, or those who find it too difficult
to hit the skip article key. Net.sources is ALIVE and well
and serving most of the little guys out there just fine as it
is. You will do the world no good by sending out terse, insulting
form letters. That tactic just won't work. As we used to say, "Power
to the People!" Long live net.sources.
--
Dr. Bruce E. Wampler
University of New Mexico
Department of Computer Science
Albuquerque, NM 87131
..{ucbvax | seismo!gatech | ihnp4!lanl}!unmvax!wampleravolio@decuac.UUCP (02/14/86)
In article <1003@unmvax.UUCP>, wampler@unmvax.UUCP writes: > First, I re-read all the newuser files, and I don't think it > is as clear as you all seem to think what is or isn't appropriate. > You may have more files than I, but I don't think this is an atypical > site. The guideline for net.sources is "large files such as > sources and documentation" (or words very close to that), and > "no discussion - bugs to net.sources.bugs" (no mention of net.wanted.sources). I suspect that you are looking at ancient descriptions. Discussions or no, net.sources is mostly (per article not per byte) junk. When over 50% of the postings in a given week are "Please repost" or "Software wanted" then there is a problem. (You may ask where did I get these statistics? I made them up...) I find this in mod.newslists, net.announce.newusers, and net.news.group and so should you: From: usenet@gatech.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.newslists,net.announce.newusers,net.news.group Subject: List of Active Newsgroups (Last changed: 13 January 1986) Message-ID: <2555@gatech.CSNET> Date: 1 Feb 86 05:19:39 GMT Organization: School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia Tech The following is a list of currently active USENET newsgroups as of 1 February 1986. There are two basic subcategories of netwide newsgroups: "net" and "mod". ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroup Description ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ... net.sources For the posting of software packages & documentation. (cf. net.wanted.sources) net.sources.bugs For bug fixes and features discussion pertaining to items in net.sources net.sources.games Postings of recreational software net.sources.mac Software for the Apple Macintosh ... net.wanted Requests for things that are needed. net.wanted.sources Requests for software, termcap entries, etc. ... mod.sources Moderated postings of public-domain sources. mod.sources.doc Archived public-domain documentation. -- Fred @ DEC Ultrix Applications Center {decvax,seismo,cbosgd}!decuac!avolio avolio@decuac.DEC.COM
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (02/15/86)
In article <1003@unmvax.UUCP> wampler@unmvax.UUCP (Bruce Wampler) writes: > >Where do discussions on public domain software or copyright notices >on software or the like belong? Certainly not net.sources.bugs or >net.wanted.sources. That kind of thing is regularly discussed in net.micro, and I don't recall anyone complaining about it. [The following is not specifically addressed to the abovementioned poster] As for charges of "Hitlerism", who do *you* want to run the network? Is it not (more or less) a network which runs smoothly only through the cooperation of it's subscribers? Are not the people being unjustly condemned for trying to make the net run smoothly also subscribers? Do you scream "Hitler" at everybody who suggests doing things differently than you would? Think about it. - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster)
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (02/15/86)
I would suggest that discussions about licensing, copyright vs. public
domain, etc. go in net.legal. After all, they *are* legal topics.
--
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, allegra, gatech, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
gds@eddie.mit.edu