sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (10/09/87)
I think there needs to be a moderated group solely for the purpose
of posting minix updates, bug fixes, context diffs, etc.
Sean
--
-- Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!sean
-- (the Empire guy) sean@ms.uky.csnet, sean@UKMA.BITNET
-- "Have fun storming the castle!" - Miracle Maxmmdf@udel.UUCP (10/10/87)
In article <7438@g.ms.uky.edu> sean@e.ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >I think there needs to be a moderated group solely for the purpose >of posting minix updates, bug fixes, context diffs, etc. I agree absolutely! I think it would make the group much more valuable. At least we won't have to wade through arguments about PDP-11 memory management, the Free Software Foundation, copyright law, LESS for MS-DOS, etc. A great idea. Now who wants do the work of moderating this mess? :-) -Frank mstan!frank
lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) (10/12/87)
> I think there needs to be a moderated group solely for the purpose > of posting minix updates, bug fixes, context diffs, etc. comp.os.minix is the group for posting updates, bug fixes, context diffs, etc. You know it's an "official" update if it's been posted by Andy. Who would take tyime to moderate bug fixes, etc? Andy? I'm sure he is busy enough without sorting bug fixes out of his mailbox and checking if they really are fixes. Plus, bug fixes would still get posted in comp.os.minix. So in effect, you really are suggesting that comp.os.minix becomes moderated. The only plus to this ( and this is a short term plus) is that all of these #%$^&@%#$ usres who can't edit their followups properly wouldn't be flooding comp.os.minix with pdp11/55 articles. Leave comp.os.minix as it is, there are already too many moderated things in the world! -- j UUCP: ...ihnp4!msudoc!eecae!lawitzke ARPA: lawitzke@eecae.ee.msu.edu (35.8.8.151)
ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) (10/13/87)
In article <3198@eecae.UUCP> lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) writes: >> I think there needs to be a moderated group solely for the purpose >> of posting minix updates, bug fixes, context diffs, etc. > Other than the current PDP-11/55 problem, I am not enthusiastic about a moderated group yet. Ideologically I don't like censorship and practically I don't have time to be moderator. I have a suggestion about dealing with the PDP-11/55 problem. Whenever someone posts something totally irrelevant to comp.os.minix, could everyone please send the poster e-mail politely informing him or her of their displeasure. If a poster gets 12,000 pieces of e-mail at each transgression, it may make an impression. Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
BECKER%HUMBER.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (Bruce Becker) (10/16/87)
I agree - I keep 2 minix sections already: one is discussion, the other is code/fixes/etc... It would be useful to have separate gruops as well, especially as people start to post utilities, major subsystem enhancements, and the like... Bruce Becker Humber College Etobicoke, Ont.
NU070156@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Glen Overby) (10/23/87)
In article <598@louie.udel.EDU>, BECKER%HUMBER.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (Bruce Becker) says: >I agree - I keep 2 minix sections already: one is discussion, the other is >code/fixes/etc... It would be useful to have separate gruops as well, I maintain an archive of Minix sources on Bitnet, and have found that it is very difficult to separate the real "signal" from "noise". I feel that a moderated Minix sources group would benefit all of us. A moderated group would give a better organisation to the programs that we all put time into creating and debugging; in the current situation we simply throw our functions to the wind and hope that it propagates around the network. This failed when a somebody from Waterloo posted their ed, sed and awk clones and they were eaten by the great Line Eater, or some such beast. Many of us (myself included) would never have found out about these programs, nor obtained them, if those people had not also sent them to Dr. Tannenbaum. In that respect, Dr. Tannenbaum has been acting as a moderator. If we had a moderated sources group, all of the postings should be serialised, like is currently done on Comp.unix.sources, et. al. so that those of us on the recieving end could easily keep track of what we have gotten or not gotten. Those sending source to the moderater would certainly be watching for their postings to come back across the network, so if they were to get lost in the mail to the moderator, they would most certainly ask what happened to them. So we get an increase in reliability of distribution. I also hope that the moderator would be able to take the time to do basic testing and possible repackaging, like Rich Salz does on the Unix sources goups. We have had many postings which were poorly done, making them difficult or impossible to use. It may also motivate people to do a better job on packaging their work. A moderated group does not necessarily mean the demise of Comp.os.minix; this group will still be useful for questions about bugs, enhancements/ new versions and PDP 11/55 nostalga :-). If one looks around at the archive sites for Usenet, it is immediately obvious that the moderated groups are the main ones archived; the others, if they get that treatment at all, are simply a collection of the dialogue for a given ammount of time. On Bitnet, our listservers do this automatically. I feel that archives are important for preserving work we do with Minix, and as an aid to help newcommers get up to speed. Then, hopefully, we won't have to be blasted with requests for some program that has already been posted many many times. I have tried to fill this latter gap with the preserves on NDSUVM1. Unfortunately, Bitnet has not proved to be cooperative with those attempting to access the server from other networks, but that's Bitnet's fault. I definatly feel that we should petition the Backbone for a Minix sources group. It is for our own good. Glen Overby Bitnet: nu070156@ndsuvm1 UUCP: uunet!ndsuvax!ncoverby