gwe@cbdkc1.UUCP ( George Erhart x4021 CB 3D288 WDS ) (11/13/85)
[ this line must be converted with a grain of salt! ]
I just noticed a curious thing! A Desk Accessory sampler application
was recently posted to the net on net.sources.mac. The posting contained
full source and a Binhex copy of the final application. The sizes of the
files are as follows:
lines words chars filename
193 686 4363 Sampler.R - source for resource compiler
443 1706 12687 Sampler.c - source for Megamax C
102 105 6303 Sampler.hqx - BINHEX of final application
The two source files total 17050 characters and the single BINHEX file
totals 6303. I believe that most of you will agree that a binary is
*usually* smaller than all of the source that it takes to produce it.
Just think, if someone had posted the Dungeons Of Doom game as full
source, the game would have taken the better portion of a meg of
bandwidth. Plus, in the case of the DA sampler above, those without
Megamax C can benefit from the posting.
I don't think that BINHEXing is the problem, the problem is the
volume of postings is way too high! To solve that problem, I would look
to the use of a moderated group rather than an open forum as we have now.
Personally, I like NSM the way it is now, but if the backbone sites kill
it, I would still like to see a moderated group with perhaps a volume
quota for the # of kbytes per month that could be posted by the moderator.
What do you think?
--
George Erhart at AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus, Ohio
614-860-4021 {ihnp4,cbosgd}!cbdkc1!gwehogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan) (11/15/85)
> I just noticed a curious thing! A Desk Accessory sampler application > was recently posted to the net on net.sources.mac. The posting contained > full source and a Binhex copy of the final application. ... > The two source files total 17050 characters and the single BINHEX file > totals 6303. [discusses usual relative sizes of binary & source] > Plus, in the case of the DA sampler above, those without > Megamax C can benefit from the posting. > > I don't think that BINHEXing is the problem, the problem is the > volume of postings is way too high! To solve that problem, I would look > to the use of a moderated group rather than an open forum as we have now. > Personally, I like NSM the way it is now, but if the backbone sites kill > it, I would still like to see a moderated group with perhaps a volume > quota for the # of kbytes per month that could be posted by the moderator. > > What do you think? > -- > George Erhart at AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus, Ohio I noticed this also, but George beat me to it. Thanks to George for the insight and quick posting, and thanks to the poster of the DA who (a) should shut up those who claim source is "[almost] never posted in sources.mac, (b) provided a useful program AND its source for instruction and free modification, and (c) provided this illustration of the good side of posting Binhex'd files (probably unintentionally, but that's fine!). That last suggestion of George's makes some sense, with one caveat: the moderator should have some leeway. The # of kbytes/mo. should be a guideline, not a law. What if he is allowed, say, 1 Mbyte/mo. and someone comes out with a super, freeware spreadsheet-and-graphics program that is 1.1M to transmit? It would be a shame to not send it because of an arbitrary limit. (Of course, we'll all have MegaMacs by then! :-) ) -- Andy Hogan Rosemount, Inc. Mpls MN path: ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!hogan Working is not a synonym for Quality.
herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) (11/16/85)
In article <1212@cbdkc1.UUCP> gwe@cbdkc1.UUCP ( George Erhart x4021 CB 3D288 WDS ) writes: >Just think, if someone had posted the Dungeons Of Doom game as full >source, the game would have taken the better portion of a meg of >bandwidth. i can say with authority that the uuencoded binary of rogue is twice as large as the sources and under 1Mbytes for both. Herb Chong... I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH UUCP: {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie CSNET: herbie.yktvmh@ibm-sj.csnet ARPA: herbie.yktvmh.ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa ======================================================================== DISCLAIMER: what you just read was produced by pouring lukewarm tea for 42 seconds onto 9 people chained to 6 Ouiji boards.
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (12/02/85)
I've been avoiding this argument (and all the net.sources* arguments)
generally, but it occurred to me that history seems to point to the fact
that this is, in the long run a self correcting problem. I don't know
whether we've hit the peak of the Mac software yet, but I think it will
in time and even decrease. It happened with the CP/M software and the
Apple II software. It may be happening with IBM PC software. It'll
happen in time with Amiga and Atari software too. There seems to be a
cycle which peaks when there are a fair number of good packages in a
fairly well defined number of fields (word processing, spreadsheets,
terminal emulators, databases and now integrated packages and graphics
and sound). The games tend to peak just before the real applications
hit the market and then taper off too. Some of the Unix people may not
believe this, but ask the BBS people and the old timers will, I think,
confirm it.
Cheers! -- Jim O.
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
Compuserve: 72205,541
MTS at WU: GKL6