pwd@pid.UUCP (Philip W. Dalrymple) (11/11/85)
In article <45100015@infoswx> bees@infoswx.UUCP writes: > >Isn't it time to create a net.sources.amiga and also decide on >a standard for posting binary, ala BINHEX or what ever is best? Why don't we use source so that the code can be changed as well as used. one of the biggest problems with net.sources.mac is that it is in large part not source code but binary. > >I vote yea... please vote, too. This and all responses should >be cross posted here and to net.news.group. If response is >great enough, the group will be created. I must say that I would rather wait a while until more people get there systems and some real source (like the shells that have been talked about) are posted. For now net.micro.amiga is not too full to talk about spliting it in two parts. I included all of the first artical because it was NOT posted to net.news.group followup-to will go to net.news.group only (unless you want to change it) > >Ray Davis >Teknekron Infoswitch, Richardson, TX >infoswx!bees, (214)644-0570 -- Philip Dalrymple akgua!pid!pwd 404/429-8266 (voice)
dale@amiga.UUCP (Dale Luck) (11/14/85)
I think that it is a little premature to create a new group for amiga.source When it has been demostrated that source that people do not want to look at is taking over net.micro.amiga then it can be spawned off. I too do not like the binaries cruising around under but that might partially be due to me not owning or using a mac. I might change my tune if it is amiga software. I prefer that kind of stuff to go in some separate group. Maybe a net.shareware all lumped together mac/amiga/atari software. Dale Luck
neil@amiga.UUCP (Neil Katin) (11/14/85)
There has been some discussion in net.micro.amiga about creating
a new newsgroup for amiga source. net.sources.amiga has been suggested.
As I understand it, the proper method for getting this done is to move
the discussion to net.news.group so other system administrators can
see the discussion. This also relieves net.micro.amiga from the flood
of "yes, lets do it" and "no, lets not" messages.
Unfortunately, most people I know have unsubscribed to net.news.group.
This tends to make the discussion rather one sided. In addition, the
newsgroup is already innundated with a several large flaming discussions:
removing net.bizzare
removing net.flame
removing net.internat
"fear and loathing on the clouds"
etc.
To those who think they REALLY know the rules: what now?
I am willing to archive the group. I am also willing to moderate it
if it is decided that mod.source.amiga is a better bet.
A note: I work for Commodore-Amiga, and am not a disinterested party.
Neil Katin
pyramid!amiga!neil
408-395-6616heiby@cuae2.UUCP (Heiby) (11/19/85)
In article <248@amiga.amiga.UUCP> neil@rocky.UUCP (Neil Katin) writes: > >There has been some discussion in net.micro.amiga about creating >a new newsgroup for amiga source. net.sources.amiga has been suggested. There have been various micro-computers in the marketplace for many years. For some time, CP/M-80 systems reigned supreme. There are still quite a few of them out there. (I have a CP/M-80 system, myself.) You don't see much CP/M software getting posted to the net, though, do you? You see, there is this thing called a "user group" that has meetings every now and then and provides a means by which software can be distributed to its members. I belonged to such a group when I lived in Minneapolis. It cost me about $15/yr to belong and included a monthly newsletter telling what was going to happen at the monthly meeting. I could bring floppy disks to the meeting with about $1/each (for the club treasury) and get a copy of any of the 150+ floppies full of public domain software in the club library (up to 10/month). This is what should be done with amiga source. This is what should be done with mac source. I use the word "source" loosely here. I have 1477 blocks in net.sources.mac on my machine. I am not (yet) expiring it early. I did a "tail -20" on the entire contents of the newsgroup and found *seven* (7) out of 47 files containing what looked like SOURCE. The rest contained encoded binary or discussion or requests of one kind or another. In summary, if it must exist, let's limit it to *source*. I believe that the concept of a "user group" is the best way to distribute such material. I believe that machine-dependent binaries do not belong on this medium. -- Ron Heiby {NAC|ihnp4}!cuae2!heiby Moderator: mod.newprod & mod.unix AT&T-IS, /app/eng, Lisle, IL (312) 810-6109 "I am not a number! I am a free man!" (#6)
dave@heurikon.UUCP (Dave Scidmore) (11/22/85)
> .... I believe > that the concept of a "user group" is the best way to distribute such > material. Are the good people at Commodore, and all the Amiga developers, and Amiga owners who write code and then post it to the net going to show up at my local users group (which does not yet exist) and distribute their programs? If they do who is going to pay for their airlines ticket? Hmmmm. Dave Scidmore
rs@mirror.UUCP (11/25/85)
>/* Written 6:02 pm Nov 21, 1985 by dave@heurikon in mirror:net.news.group */ >> .... I believe >> that the concept of a "user group" is the best way to distribute such >> material. > > Are the good people at Commodore, and all the Amiga developers, and >Amiga owners who write code and then post it to the net going to show up at >my local users group (which does not yet exist) and distribute their programs? >If they do who is going to pay for their airlines ticket? Hmmmm. > > Dave Scidmore Ahh, I see. You don't want to pay for the airline ticket, but you don't mind if other people pay for the phone bill. At least you're consistant... -- Rich $alz {mit-eddie, ihnp4!inmet, wjh12, cca, datacube}!mirror!rs Mirror Systems 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA, 02140 Telephone: 6,176,610,777
bees@infoswx.UUCP (11/26/85)
>/* Written 11:37 pm Nov 18, 1985 by well.UUCP!perry in net.micro.amiga */ >/* ---------- "Re: net.sources.amiga - (Lets make" ---------- */ >Haven't we passed around enough bytes dealing with how to create a net.sources >for the AMIGA. >Someone should just set something up. Chances are the way chosen will directly >benefit a significant fraction of those concerned. I am confident that the >rest of the interested public will be provided for. The reason we go through all this rigamarole before creating another newsgroup is that keeping this net half-way organized takes a lot of work. In order to maintain sanity, everyone using this net needs to take it upon [him|her]self to follow the "rules of etiqette" agreed upon by the members at large. Discussing the pluses and minuses of creating a new group helps keep un-needed groups from appearing constantly. It also helps those with the idea of creating it decide the best place to put it and the best thing to name it. This avoids a lot of mistakes. There currently IS a mechanism for distributing sources. Post them to net.micro.amiga since the traffic there is still small enough to manage. I posted the original suggestion for a sources group, and have been collecting all relevant discussion in net.micro.amiga and net.news.group, for the last couple weeks. Soon I will post the results of the discussion and voting. At that point, either more discussion will be needed or the group will either be created or not. Patience! Ray Davis Teknekron Infoswitch, Richardson, TX infoswx!bees, (214)644-0570