rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (02/11/86)
In an article to net.sources (and yes, it was justified there in this extreme case), Bruce Wampler made some very good points -- I am taking the liberties of cross-posting this original call for net.sources.d to net.sources as well as net.news.group and of including pieces of his original article. PLEASE FOLLOWUP TO THIS ARTICLE IN net.news.group ONLY!!!! Thanks! >**** FLAME ON **** > . > . [talks of being flamed for posting a source > . availability notice] > . >In case you missed the original announcement, I announced that SOURCE >code for a cross assembler for a TI-9900 was available. > > Apparently these little Hitlers would have me post 100K or so >bytes of source code to the entire net for the benefit of maybe 10 or >20 users. That would have been ok - it was source itself. But announce >that the source is available for direct mailing, saving many $$$'s in >phone bills by mailing directly to the interested parties - that's >inappropriate use of net.sources. Well, I think these twits who tell >me how to behave are inappropriate to net.sources. I won't tell who >they are, but no doubt they will flame me again. > > Having been flamed once, I was a bit reluctant to post again, >but it really makes me MAD. In light of all the recent postings of >copyright discussions, and the multitudes of "I didn't get part x >of something", simply announcing availability of source seems >perfectly appropriate. >**** FLAME OFF **** > . > . [Several "rules" (sensible ones) on when to post > . to mod.sources, when to post to net.sources, etc.] > . > 5. For all the little Hitlers out there: maybe we need >something MORE than net.sources, net.sources.bugs, and net.sources.wanted. >There seems to be real need for a place to post to discuss things >about net.sources, and .bugs and .wanted don't fit the bill. >We need net.sources.d or something like that. Flaming people >is NOT the answer. > Agreed. 100%. This article proposes the creation of net.sources.d (analogous in symbiotic function to net.jokes.d) for purposes of directly-source-related discussions (i.e., copyrights, is this software really public domain?, etc.), announcements of source availability such as Bruce's, and ESPECIALLY THE "I DIDN'T GET PART x OF ..." POSTINGS!! Send your votes to me via mail or phone (preferrably mail, please!) and I'll post the results when the responses trickle down or are overwhelming in one direction or another. -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) (02/11/86)
I'm beginning to think that we need net.sources.sources for sources and
leave net.sources for the sort of mindless garbage that tends to fill it
now. The argument is that you have to type more to get into the
sources.sources group, and it would "force" people to think further
about the purpose of the group. Or, maybe it should be
net.sources.only-code-should-be-posted-to-this-group :-)
--
=Spencer ({ihnp4,decvax}!utah-cs!thomas, thomas@utah-cs.ARPA)