lenny@icus.UUCP (Lenny Tropiano) (07/11/88)
In article <383@manta.UUCP> brant@manta.UUCP (Brant Cheikes) writes: |>In article <412@icus.UUCP> lenny@icus.UUCP (Lenny Tropiano) responds |>to an article by loci!clb: |>>*FLAME ON* |> |>REALLY, gentlemen. Must we sully the unix-pc groups with flamage? |>It's bad enough that it happens in "official USENET" groups. |> |>I don't think Mr. Brunow's comment ("delusions of grandeur?") was |>directed at Mr. Tropiano. Rather, he just expressed an opinion that |>such a low-volume stream as unix-pc.* doesn't need something as |>"grandiose" as a moderated sources group. I don't agree, and I don't |>think Lenny needed to turn around and defend his net-existence. |> Well, I disagree here. But leave it at that. I agree that unix-pc.* isn't the place for flamage. I just didn't like the way Mr. Brunow quoted my article out of context -- it made it look like I was "boasting", in reality I was just offering my assistance (as always). It could have been carried out privately, but he chose not to. |>Now, to the point: I would agree that unix-pc does not need more |>subgroups. I only see 10-20 articles per day in .general, the volume |>just doesn't justify increased "categorization." In fact, I can't |>even see the justification for unix-pc.uucp. I've seen maybe 10 |>postings there in the last year. |> I agree here. I retrospect the volume of news that the unix-pc.* gets might not require a reorganization like the one I posed. Most of you (those who replied) feel the same. Possibly let's get rid of .general and make it two groups, .software and .hardware? |>As far as a moderated sources group goes: I'm aware that unix-pc |>specific stuff is distributed over the net, archived here and there. |>But there doesn't seem to be anyone doing the job of keeping track of |>what's available in any organized way. I'd like to see something like |>what Salz and Allbery are doing, but for unix-pc-specific source code |>only. That is, periodic postings of lists of available software, with |>someone to contact about getting the stuff. I would prefer central |>organization and archiving to lists of n people to contact along with |>what they have. I don't think this is grandiose, and a moderated |>sources group would be useful. If Lenny's willing to do that, great. |>Lenny: can you handle keeping all the stuff online and available for |>anonymous uucp? |> If I would take the responsibily of being the unix-pc.sources moderator, I would have a little learning to do. Yes, I would allow anon-uucp pickups, and keep the sources online. There isn't a *big* volume of that either, so storage wouldn't be too much of a problem. I haven't gotten that many replies... most of them are split 1/2 and 1/2 about making unix-pc.sources moderated. |>We should be careful NOT to overlap unix-pc.sources with the other |>sources groups. That is, unix-pc.sources should be devoted to software |>specific to the unix-pc ONLY. Though it might be useful to |>occasionally pass along the sources.unix and sources.misc lists when |>they come out. |> Yes, this could very well be arranged. It would make sure that at least *one* person (the moderator) got *ALL* sources posted to unix-pc.sources. -Lenny -- Paper-net: Lenny Tropiano | @-net: lenny@icus.UUCP ICUS Software Systems | !-net: ...att \ PO Box 1 | boulder \ Islip Terrace, NY 11752 | talcott !icus!lenny Vocal-net: (516) 582-5525 [work] | pacbell / (516) 968-8576 [home] | sbcs / Telex-net: 154232428 ICUS | Another-net: attmail!icus!lenny
mml@magnus.UUCP (Mike Levin) (07/12/88)
In article <417@icus.UUCP> lenny@icus.UUCP (Lenny Tropiano) writes: > >|>sources group would be useful. If Lenny's willing to do that, great. >|>Lenny: can you handle keeping all the stuff online and available for >|>anonymous uucp? >|> >If I would take the responsibily of being the unix-pc.sources moderator, >I would have a little learning to do. Yes, I would allow anon-uucp >pickups, and keep the sources online. There isn't a *big* volume of >that either, so storage wouldn't be too much of a problem. I haven't >gotten that many replies... most of them are split 1/2 and 1/2 about >making unix-pc.sources moderated. > I feel somewhat responsible for starting this whole ruckus, with an article I posted urging folks to not *cross-post*, and suggesting that a moderated sources group would be a good idea. I would just like to say that there has been a *bit* of software posted which was incomplete, not ported to the 3B1, etc. I say if Lenny is *WILLING* to moderate this group, I'm all for it. I think that's a good way to ensure some continuity. For those folks who wish to post little scripts, etc., we could *also* have an un-moderated group. For example: unix-pc.sources (moderated) Fully supported sources unix-pc.uucp (un-moderated) Uucp related things ONLY. unix-pc.test (un-moderated) For testing new sites, etc. unix-pc.general (un-moderated) Discussions, questions, etc. unix-pc.software (un-moderated) Scripts, bug-reports, programs. unix-pc.hardware (un-moderated) Hardware (drives, tapes, etc.) I think that by thus adding only *2* groups, we get things much better organized. And, once again, I strongly urge *NO CROSSPOSTING* within these groups. Anybody who reads one, reads the others (if they're interested), so it's bothersome and useless. Lenny, you have my vote. Mike Levin -- +---+ P L E A S E R E S P O N D T O: +---+ * * * * * * * * * * | Mike Levin, Silent Radio Los Angeles (magnus)| I never thought I'd be LOOKING | Path {csun|kosman|mtune|srhqla}!magnus!levin | for something to say! ! ! +----------------------------------------------+------------------------------+
kevin@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman) (07/13/88)
In article <240@magnus.UUCP> mml@magnus.UUCP (Mike Levin) writes: ]In article <417@icus.UUCP> lenny@icus.UUCP (Lenny Tropiano) writes: ]> ]>|>sources group would be useful. If Lenny's willing to do that, great. ]>|>Lenny: can you handle keeping all the stuff online and available for ]>|>anonymous uucp? ]>|> ]> ]>If I would take the responsibily of being the unix-pc.sources moderator, ]>I would have a little learning to do. Yes, I would allow anon-uucp ]>pickups, and keep the sources online. There isn't a *big* volume of ]>that either, so storage wouldn't be too much of a problem. I haven't ]>gotten that many replies... most of them are split 1/2 and 1/2 about ]>making unix-pc.sources moderated. ]> There's a confusion of functions here: There's no necessary connection between moderating a group and archiving it. I believe that there are moderators on the larger net who are NOT also archive sites for various reasons, and I know there are archives elsewhere than at the site with the moderator. You want archives, that's fine. I already archive almost everything on floppies (sorry, can't keep it all on-line), and there may be non-UNIX-PC sites that can keep it online. About the only thing a moderator can contribute to this is to aid in cataloging by putting definitive volume and issue numbers on things. I'm not sure if all moderators do this now. ] ]I feel somewhat responsible for starting this whole ruckus, with an article ]I posted urging folks to not *cross-post*, and suggesting that a moderated ]sources group would be a good idea. I would just like to say that there has ]been a *bit* of software posted which was incomplete, not ported to the 3B1, ]etc. I say if Lenny is *WILLING* to moderate this group, I'm all for it. I ]think that's a good way to ensure some continuity. For those folks who wish ]to post little scripts, etc., we could *also* have an un-moderated group. ]For example: ] ] unix-pc.sources (moderated) Fully supported sources ] unix-pc.uucp (un-moderated) Uucp related things ONLY. ] unix-pc.test (un-moderated) For testing new sites, etc. ] unix-pc.general (un-moderated) Discussions, questions, etc. ] unix-pc.software (un-moderated) Scripts, bug-reports, programs. ] unix-pc.hardware (un-moderated) Hardware (drives, tapes, etc.) I think there's a bit of confusion here, too. Your goal is to eliminate cross posting and inappropriate stuff in the sources group. I don't know anything that stops cross-posting for certain, and only constant admonitions on the net seems to have any effect at all. I urge you to continue this. I have even forgotten this once or twice and cross-posted within unix-pc. The larger net seems to have found that the only thing that stops inappropriate posting is to have ONLY moderated groups for software. Otherwise, folks who have partly-baked software will post it to the 'easy' group (in this case, unix-pc.software). There are the percieved advantages of 'ease' and also that the stuff gets distributed faster because it doesn't have to find a mail path to the moderator (a surprisingly big problem, sometimes) and it doesn't have to wait to get to the top of the moderator's FIFO queue. One might also consider whether you REALLY want to separate the software postings in this way. Some scripts are just as important as the larger sources. I'm thinking specifically of the /bin/ccc script (which I keep in /usr/local/bin/cc, by the way) which I think has evolved into one of the neatest hacks on this machine. Under the above scheme, it would get posted to unix-pc.software, and not get archived. This would be a pity. Finally, I think dividing the unix-pc net any finer is not very meaningful. The usual reason to divide groups is to accomodate people who want to read some of the stuff and not all of it. I have noticed that many of the postings supporting these ideas acknowledge that almost all unix-pc readers read all the groups, and are likely to continue to do so. The volume of traffic is simply too small to be a big burden on anyone's time, and it is kind of neat to keep in touch with what's going on. The only large-volume stuff has been occasional big sources, and that already has a separate group. If you haven't guessed already, I am voting *AGAINST* moderating, and also against any new unix-pc groups. I also agree with a recent poster who noted that we may as well drop the unix-pc.uucp group, on account of miniscule volume and all the discussions that might otherwise go there seem to fit nicely in unix-pc.general. It would be nice to have one or more official archivists, though. I can and already do archive on an unofficial basis, and can redistribute things on request. I do not have a catalog, but I have a full tray of stuff from THE STORE! and another tray from the net (about 100-150 floppies each). I can also put stuff on AT&T cartridge tape. ] ]I think that by thus adding only *2* groups, we get things much better ]organized. And, once again, I strongly urge *NO CROSSPOSTING* within these ]groups. Anybody who reads one, reads the others (if they're interested), so ]it's bothersome and useless. Yes, Mike, I'll try to remember. ] ]Lenny, you have my vote. ] ] ] Mike Levin --- Kevin O'Gorman ( kevin@kosman ) voice: 805-984-8042 Vital Computer Systems, 5115 Beachcomber, Oxnard, CA 93035
darren@bacchus.UUCP (Darren Friedlein) (07/14/88)
In article <240@magnus.UUCP> mml@magnus.UUCP (Mike Levin) writes: >In article <417@icus.UUCP> lenny@icus.UUCP (Lenny Tropiano) writes: >> >>|>sources group would be useful. If Lenny's willing to do that, great. >>|>Lenny: can you handle keeping all the stuff online and available for >>|>anonymous uucp? >>|> >>If I would take the responsibily of being the unix-pc.sources moderator, >>I would have a little learning to do. Yes, I would allow anon-uucp >>pickups, and keep the sources online. There isn't a *big* volume of >>that either, so storage wouldn't be too much of a problem. I haven't >>gotten that many replies... most of them are split 1/2 and 1/2 about >>making unix-pc.sources moderated. >> > >I feel somewhat responsible for starting this whole ruckus, with an article >I posted urging folks to not *cross-post*, and suggesting that a moderated >sources group would be a good idea. I would just like to say that there has >been a *bit* of software posted which was incomplete, not ported to the 3B1, >etc. I say if Lenny is *WILLING* to moderate this group, I'm all for it. I >think that's a good way to ensure some continuity. For those folks who wish >to post little scripts, etc., we could *also* have an un-moderated group. >For example: >... I'm afraid I have to disagree. I haven't seen a program come through unix-pc.sources that was incomplete or not ported. My experience with moderated newsgroups is that it takes forever to get programs out (especially if you're going to test them first). If this were a high- volume newsgroup with lots of trash posted to it, I'd be all for moderation -- that's the purpose of moderation -- to keep the trash out. I haven't seen that happen, though. Moderating unix-pc.sources might also cause some software to be posted to unix-pc.general. If the decision, however, *IS* to moderate, unix-pc.general, and Lenny, you're willing to take that on, you have my vote too. I think a better compromise would be to find someone (maybe Lenny) who is willing to keep all the sources that are posted on-line for ftp. > Mike Levin > > >-- >+---+ P L E A S E R E S P O N D T O: +---+ * * * * * * * * * * >| Mike Levin, Silent Radio Los Angeles (magnus)| I never thought I'd be LOOKING >| Path {csun|kosman|mtune|srhqla}!magnus!levin | for something to say! ! ! >+----------------------------------------------+------------------------------+ -darren ____ / \ | Rt 4, Box 416, Durham, NC 27703 _____|_____ Darren G. Friedlein data (bacchus) : 919/596-7746 / | \ voice : 919/596-9492 ( | ) \____/ __/ {mcnc|icus|ditka|ethos|gladys|bakerst}!bacchus!darren W H Y M U S T I D O T H I S ? ? ?
bob@rush.cts.com (Bob Ames) (07/17/88)
In article <563@bacchus.UUCP>, darren@bacchus.UUCP (Darren Friedlein) writes: > I'm afraid I have to disagree. I haven't seen a program come through > unix-pc.sources that was incomplete or not ported. My experience with > moderated newsgroups is that it takes forever to get programs out > (especially if you're going to test them first). > > I think a better compromise would be to find someone (maybe Lenny) who > is willing to keep all the sources that are posted on-line for ftp. I agree with Darrin. I vote *no* for any moderation, though rush will carry and unofficially archive unix-pc.ALL (this means any new groups as well) from now on, and has been doing so for a while. We sure do need an archive site, though. I'd be willing to send what I've got online to anyone who wished to poll. I never expire unix-pc newsgroups. I have 2400 Baud UUCP. I'm normally in San Diego area although until mid- september I'm in southern Idaho. (yuck |-) I'll see California this week though!!!!!! If someone has pointers on getting UUCP/smail/news set up on SUN 3/50s or 4/110s, please let me know, since I will do this soon here in Southern Idaho. I've got a trailbalzer TB+ on it's way here now. It'll be running on suns running 4.2 unix and *NO HDB* |-/. Can the Trailblazer talk on DARPA net using X.25? How do I get access to this? Anybody know how to get a registered domain? I tried mailing to someone@stargate, but never heard anything. Sorry about the length of this posting. Bob Ames INET: bob@rush.cts.com Howard Publications, Inc. Bell: 208-733-0931 UUCP: {rutgers!ucsd, nosc, hplabs!hp-sdd}!crash!rush!bob "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!" "We each pay a fabulous price - for our visions of paradise." - N Peart 1987