jay@umcp-cs.UUCP (Jay Elvove) (01/30/85)
I was just wondering, since the MAC people got their own .sources. group, is there sufficient interest in forming a similar newsgroup for PCs and MSDOS clones? I'm sure there's an awful lot of public domain PC software out there that is just dying to be shared among us all. Of course, what I'm hinting at is the creation of net.sources.pc. -- Jay Elvove ..!seismo!umcp-cs!jay
allyn@sdcsvax.UUCP (Allyn Fratkin) (02/04/85)
I don't see any point in having a net.sources.{pc,msdos}. Just how much
msdos software have you seen in net.sources recently? Very little.
What makes you think msdos sources will suddenly appear if a net.sources.msdos
group is created? Feeling left out is not a good reason to create a group.
Just because you have/want msdos source doesn't mean you can't use net.sources
and net.wanted.sources. It's there for *any* source you care to distribute
or want to find, not just Unix stuff. For example, there were some Korn shell
procedures posted there a while back, and the Korn shell is only available
inside AT&T. There was a lot of MacTraffic, so that's why a separate group
was created.
So go ahead and post your msdos software to net.sources. I'm not totally
against a net.sources.msdos group. If there is a good bit of msdos traffic,
there should be a group. But not until then.
For those on the arpanet, usc-isib keeps the info-ibmpc library of public-
domain programs. Mail to info-ibmpc-request@usc-isib.arpa for information.
--
From the virtual mind of Allyn Fratkin allyn@UCSD or
UCSD EMU/Pascal Project {ucbvax, decvax, ihnp4}
U.C. San Diego !sdcsvax!allyn
"Generally you don't see that kind of behavior in a major appliance."west@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Steve Westfall) (02/07/85)
Jay Elvove (jay@umcp-cs.UUCP) recently wrote: >. . . since the MAC people got their own .sources. group, >is there sufficient interest in forming a similar newsgroup for >PCs and MSDOS clones? I'm sure there's an awful lot of public >domain PC software out there that is just dying to be shared among >us all. Of course, what I'm hinting at is the creation of >net.sources.pc. I heartily agree. Just today I was wishing I could get my hands on some C code for a decent full-screen editor for my IBM PC. I would recommend a name like net.sources.msdos or such, since "pc" is becoming a broader term. -- Steve Westfall uucp: ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!west Staff Analyst bitnet: staff.westfall%chip@UChicago.bitnet U. of Chicago Computation Center
haddock@waltz.UUCP (02/07/85)
>. . . since the MAC people got their own .sources. group, >is there sufficient interest in forming a similar newsgroup for >PCs and MSDOS clones? I'm sure there's an awful lot of public >domain PC software out there that is just dying to be shared among >us all. Of course, what I'm hinting at is the creation of >net.sources.pc. >Jay Elvove (jay@umcp-cs.UUCP) I heartily agree. ... I would recommend a name like net.sources.msdos or such, since "pc" is becoming a broader term. Steve Westfall uucp: ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!west I'd like to second that! Trying to remember were a posted source was after you've seen it and not save it immediately is a bit of a problem. "Now were was it? In net.sources, INFO-IBMPC, net.micro*, etc. etc...." Net.sources.msdos is the most appropriate name so long as the entries aren't always IBM specific. ================================================================ _____ -Rusty- |\/ o \ o | ( -< O o Where's the fish? |/\__V__/ ARPA: Haddock%Waltz%TI-CSL.csnet@CSNet-Relay.arpa CSNet: Haddock@TI-CSL USENET: {ut-sally, convex!smu, texsun, rice} ! waltz ! haddock
tony@ur-cvsvax.UUCP (Tony Movshon) (02/10/85)
> Just because you have/want msdos source doesn't mean you can't use net.sources > and net.wanted.sources. It's there for *any* source you care to distribute > or want to find, not just Unix stuff... I disagree. One virtue of a separate group is that binaries as well as sources could be posted without arousing the ire of the net.sources folks who don't want to archive binaries for every machine that comes along. Fact is, there is a SEPARATE interest in msdos software, just like Mac software, and for the most efficient use of the news by everyone, it would best be in a separate newsgroup. The alternative is to use net.micro.* for software postings, but doubtless someone would object to that, too. Tony Movshon uucp: {seismo|ihnp4|allegra}!cmcl2!hipl!tony arpa: hipl!tony@nyu-cmcl2 usps: dept psychology, nyu, 6 washington pl, nyc 10003
djb@gatech.UUCP (David J. Buechner) (02/13/85)
> I disagree. One virtue of a separate group is that binaries as well as > sources could be posted without arousing the ire of the net.sources folks To add to Tony's point - it would also give those of us with a specific interest in msdos software the ability to trade sources without the hassle of fighting through mountains of source for everything from the TI58 on up. Add in another vote for net.source.msdos. ------------- David Buechner System Support - Computer Supported Instruction project UUCP : ...!{akgua,allegra,emory,rlgvax,sb1,ut-ngp,ut-sally}!gatech!djb ARPA : djb.gatech@CSNet-Relay CSNET : djb@gatech Federal snail : Ga. Tech P.O. Box 33336, Atlanta, Georgia 30332
greenber@timeb.UUCP (Ross Greenberg) (02/13/85)
Add one more vote for net.sources.msdos.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York
--------->ihnp4!cmcl2!timeinc!timeb!greenber<---------