john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) (02/14/85)
>From: yee@ucbvax.ARPA (Peter E. Yee) >Subject: Re: New newsgroup created for the posting of game sources >Message-ID: <4806@ucbvax.ARPA> > >Why was this group created? I may have missed some of the discussion, but I >have seen no discussion regarding the need for such a group? Did my recent >posting of three games cause a bit of upset? :-) In any case, the games >were indubitably source, and I don't see any reason why they should be >separated from other source. I mean, there aren't news groups like >net.sources.{utilities,kernel-fixes,misc}. Why the singling out of games? > Before any new divisions of net.sources are created, perhaps we had better decide on a consistent policy for such divisions. Should any new divisions be machine-oriented (net.sources.mac) or functionality-oriented (net.sources.games)? At present we have the makings of a hodge-podge. ("Gee, do I post this game for the Macintosh to net.sources.mac or net.sources.games?") Isn't the net confused enough as it is? [Personal opinion follows- hit 'q' to skip] Personally I'd like to see a breakdown by machine (or, rather, by OS). I don't mind wading through lots of source postings provided that there is SOME chance of them being able to run on my system. (We run a v7 with a few 4.1 enhancements, but I don't like seeing an interesting package just to find out it only runs under 4.2BSD on a Vax 11/780.) If net.sources MUST be further divided, then let it be along lines like these: net.sources (general stuff, able to run on most systems) net.sources.mac net.sources.msdos net.sources.cpm net.sources.4BSD (4.2BSD stuff) net.sources.usg (SYS III, SYS IV stuff) etc... -- John Ruschmeyer ...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john Monmouth College ...!princeton!moncol!john W. Long Branch, NJ 07764 "Everybody knows in the second life, We all come back sooner or later. As anything from a pussy cat, To a man-eating alligator."
hummel@csd2.UUCP (Robert Hummel) (02/18/85)
> Before any new divisions of net.sources are created, perhaps we had better > decide on a consistent policy for such divisions. > > Personally I'd like to see a breakdown by machine (or, rather, by OS). I > don't mind wading through lots of source postings provided that there is > SOME chance of them being able to run on my system. HEAR! HEAR! I couldn't agree more. Let me suggest one more thing, however: since no breakdown of net.sources will ever be seen as completely rational or will ever be completely transparent, an additional group called ... ---> net.sources.announce <--- ... which contains synopses of postings to all net.sources subgroups is needed. Ideally, this would be automatic: the title of any net.sources.* posting would go into net.sources.announce. If you reply by mail NOTE THAT I AM USING A FRIEND'S ACCOUNT, mail to: uucp: {seismo|ihnp4}!cmcl2!hipl!tony arpa: hipl!tony@nyu-cmcl2 Tony Movshon / Dept. Psychology / NYU / NYC 10003
jay@unm-la.UUCP (02/19/85)
> an additional group called ... > > ---> net.sources.announce <--- > > ... which contains synopses of postings to all net.sources subgroups > is needed. Ideally, this would be automatic: the title of any > net.sources.* posting would go into net.sources.announce. > BRAVO! BRAVO!! But not automatic; the synopsis is just as important as the title. How often I have saved, moved to a new directory, and unsharred a posting just to find it isn't of any interest. (How often have I ignored a posting that would have been of interest?) A one or two paragraph blurb describing each source posting would be *very* helpful to anyone who doesn't have time to read every article that comes across the net. -- Jay Plett {{ucbvax,gatech}!unmvax, lanl}!unm-la!jay
chris@byucsa.UUCP (Chris J. Grevstad) (02/20/85)
.
My whole-hearted agreement on the intelligent splitting of net.sources in
to subgroups pertaining to specific operating systems.
--
Chris Grevstad
{ihnp4,noao,mcnc,utah-cs}!arizona!byucsa!chris
If things don't change they will probably remain the same.