wcs@ho95e.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>) (03/11/88)
In article <2310@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: :In article <149@tscs.UUCP> gerard@tscs.UUCP (Stephen M. Gerard) writes: :>There is a very definite need for moderation here! :I volunteer to moderate again. I'm sending a message to the backbones Please leave it unmoderated!! The ratio of binaries to discussion has been acceptably low, and the discussion has been evenly balanced between bug fixes and requests for stuff. WHile moderated groups may have slightly better-quality stuff (more man pages), there's a delay involved, and moderation seems to inhibit posting. If you want to be a "quasi-official archiver", great! but not a moderator. -- # Thanks; # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs # So we got out our parsers and debuggers and lexical analyzers and various # implements of destruction and went off to clean up the tty driver...
vandys@hpindda.HP.COM (Andy Valencia) (03/12/88)
/ hpindda:comp.binaries.ibm.pc / wcs@ho95e.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>) / 4:55 pm Mar 10, 1988 / In article <2310@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: :In article <149@tscs.UUCP> gerard@tscs.UUCP (Stephen M. Gerard) writes: :>There is a very definite need for moderation here! :I volunteer to moderate again. I'm sending a message to the backbones Please leave it unmoderated!! The ratio of binaries to discussion has been acceptably low, and the discussion has been evenly balanced between bug fixes and requests for stuff. WHile moderated groups may have slightly better-quality stuff (more man pages), there's a delay involved, and moderation seems to inhibit posting. If you want to be a "quasi-official archiver", great! but not a moderator. -- # Thanks; # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs # So we got out our parsers and debuggers and lexical analyzers and various # implements of destruction and went off to clean up the tty driver... ----------
steve@slovax.UUCP (Steve Cook) (03/12/88)
in article <2054@ho95e.ATT.COM>, wcs@ho95e.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>) says: > > Please leave it unmoderated!! The ratio of binaries to discussion has been > acceptably low, and the discussion has been evenly balanced between > bug fixes and requests for stuff. WHile moderated groups may have slightly > better-quality stuff (more man pages), there's a delay involved, and > moderation seems to inhibit posting. > > If you want to be a "quasi-official archiver", great! but not a moderator. I agree... it seems like bit of an overreaction to me. MEAN18 is the only pirated thing I've seen on here in the 4 months I've suscribed (one too many though) and 1 virus infected program that I've heard of (FLUSHOT2). If the problem was rampant I'd agree to a moderator - as is i agree with Bill's posting. The great majority of people on this particular net seem to be a little more responsible than found on an open BBS. The reaction to MEAN18 was a good example of this. Well, thats my two cents worth... -- Steve Cook Hah... try to find me at {psivax,ism780}!logico!slovax!steve or at {hplsla,uw-beaver}!tikal!slovax!steve I dare you to, RDA will disavow all knowledge of me.
davew@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM (David C. White) (03/12/88)
In article <2054@ho95e.ATT.COM> wcs@ho95e.UUCP (46323-Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>,2G218,x0705,) writes: >In article <2310@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >:In article <149@tscs.UUCP> gerard@tscs.UUCP (Stephen M. Gerard) writes: >:>There is a very definite need for moderation here! >:I volunteer to moderate again. I'm sending a message to the backbones > >Please leave it unmoderated!! The ratio of binaries to discussion has been >acceptably low, and the discussion has been evenly balanced between Maybe you haven't been getting all the postings. The majority of articles in this group have been discussions and requests which do NOT belong in a binaries group but rather in comp.sys.ibm.pc. >bug fixes and requests for stuff. WHile moderated groups may have slightly >better-quality stuff (more man pages), there's a delay involved, and How many arc/pkarc programs have been posted in this group in the last 6 months? It seems that every week another one is posted or there is a lot of discussion about the previous one that was posted. Moderation would certainly cut out a lot of the needless duplication that goes on in the binaries group. >moderation seems to inhibit posting. I do not understand why you feel that moderation inhibits posting. Probably the only thing that is inhibited in the posting of "noisy" aritcles or bad programs that do not properly belong in the group. The only inhibition is that it may make someone think a bit before they start blasting off articles which don't belong in the group to which they are being posted. Yes there is a delay involved, but the payoff for that delay is a higher quality newsgroup if the moderator is doing a good job, which most of them do. Being a moderator is not a fun job and I certainly appreciate the effort that someone is willing to undertake in order to keep a newsgroup in line with the purpose that it was established for. I have added a Followup: line to get the discussion out of the binaries group and into the groups where it properly belongs. -- =================================================================== Dave White Grass Valley Group, Inc. PHONE: +1 916.478.3052 P.O. Box 1114 Grass Valley, CA 95945 UUCP: davew@gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com or ...!tektronix!gvgpsa!davew
soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (03/14/88)
In article <2908@slovax.UUCP>, steve@slovax.UUCP (Steve Cook) writes: > in article <2054@ho95e.ATT.COM>, wcs@ho95e.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>) says > > Please leave it unmoderated!! The ratio of binaries to discussion has been > > acceptably low, and the discussion has been evenly balanced between > > bug fixes and requests for stuff. While moderated groups may have slightly > > better-quality stuff (more man pages), there's a delay involved, and > > moderation seems to inhibit posting. > > If you want to be a "quasi-official archiver", great! but not a moderator. > I agree... it seems like bit of an overreaction to me. MEAN18 is > the only pirated thing I've seen on here in the 4 months I've > suscribed (one too many though) and 1 virus infected program that > I've heard of (FLUSHOT2). If the problem was rampant I'd agree to > a moderator - as is i agree with Bill's posting. The great majority > of people on this particular net seem to be a little more responsible > than found on an open BBS. The reaction to MEAN18 was a good example > of this. Well, thats my two cents worth... Oh I see, One virus program and one illegal (even though not intentionally so) posting in four months is acceptable! I think not. Please remember we're not talking about 1 BBS run by an individual who is ultimately responsible for what is on the board. If he gets in trouble his BBS goes away, he pays the piper and the buck stops there. Any SYSOP who does not pre-screen postings and gets caught with pirate software on line deserves what he gets. Were dealing with a much bigger system. There are probably 10,000 illegal copies of MEAN18 out there (I never got a cancel on them) even if 1% of the net is irresponsible that's 100 pirate copies from one original much more than the 1:9 ratio most companies say they expect. If the owner of the software found out about that 10,000 number you bet they'd sit up and take notice. One more incident like this has the potential to destroy the entire network and land a LOT of people in court. And just how many people did the FLUSHOT2 virus get? 10, 100, 1000 or more? Just think if the Lehigh virus had been distributed on the net how many dead hard disks would be out there now? We cannot afford this dangerous situation. Moderate now before it's too late!! Truly responsible site admins should either be prepared to look at everything that is posted to unmoderated binary and source groups or stop propogating them. Sure there is still the problem that we'll have to rely on the responsibility of the moderator and there will no doubt be forgeries but I'd be more willing to take that chance than deal with the current danger. Those more interested in getting scads of free software as fast as possible protecting themselves from hackers and pirates should get out of the regular distributions and form an alternate distribution. I'll suggest a top level name of fools or suemenowavoidtherush -- Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment UUCP: utzoo!lsuc!ncrcan!---\ VOICE: +1 416 323 2623 {utzoo,utgpu}!sickkids!ontenv!norm ENVOY: N.SOLEY {mnetor,utgpu}!ontmoh/
jim@helios.cs.odu.edu (Jim Duncan) (03/16/88)
In article <2054@ho95e.ATT.COM> wcs@ho95e.UUCP (46323-Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>,2G218,x0705,) writes: >In article <2310@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >:In article <149@tscs.UUCP> gerard@tscs.UUCP (Stephen M. Gerard) writes: >:>There is a very definite need for moderation here! >:I volunteer to moderate again. I'm sending a message to the backbones > >Please leave it unmoderated!! The ratio of binaries to discussion has been >acceptably low, and the discussion has been evenly balanced between >bug fixes and requests for stuff. WHile moderated groups may have slightly >better-quality stuff (more man pages), there's a delay involved, and >moderation seems to inhibit posting. > ># Thanks; ># Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs I disagree. I am more likely to post to a moderator than to the net for several reasons, among them: - A moderator will know if several essentially equivalent postings have occurred, and condense or limit the responses, so as to avoid redundant postings (e.g. the flagellation of the poster of MEAN18), and cut down on transmission costs. - A moderator can ensure that we all get the most recent versions of software. - A moderator can enforce the true purpose of the newsgroup, such as making sure that ONLY BINARIES ARE POSTED HERE (comp.binaries.ibm.pc), and discussion is re-routed to comp.sys.ibm.pc. - A moderator can insulate us to some extent from silly crap, like obvious Trojan horses, viruses, or screwed-up postings that won't uudecode or de-arc properly. I believe a moderator is a good idea. I only wish I had the time to do it. My heart and hopes go out to the poor soul who takes on this job. Jim Duncan Jim Duncan, Computer Science Dept, Old Dominion Univ, Norfolk VA 23529-0162 (804)440-3915 INET: jim@cs.odu.edu UUCP: ...!sun!xanth!jim ---------- Time flies like the wind, but fruit flies like bananas. ---------
wcs@ho95e.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>) (03/22/88)
There's been a lot of discussion of moderation, archive formats, etc., mostly in favor of it. I contend that comp.binaries.ibm.pc runs well enough without moderation, and that moderation will reduce the amount of useful software posted here, though it will also reduce the amount of junk. What is this newsgroup actually used for? The major purpose for its creation had been to separate general discussion from software postings. This lets people who want software get it without wading through the immense volume of comp.sys.ibm.pc, and people who want general discussion avoid having to skip over uuencoded arc files. As long as the volume is moderate, it's reasonable for comp.binaries.ibm.pc (or some group like it) to carry - binaries and sources - bug reports and fixes, and other discussion *specifically related* to posted software. - brief requests for software - small amounts of meta-discussion, like "how do I read an arc file". - discussions related to running the group, like which arc to use and whether to moderate it. In an unmoderated group, all these things will be together, which makes archiving much easier! Sure there will be more articles, but what you really care about for archiving is megabytes, and the discussion doesn't add much. In article <4484@xanth.cs.odu.edu> jim@xanth.UUCP (Jim Duncan) writes: >I believe a moderator is a good idea. I only wish I had the time to do it. >My heart and hopes go out to the poor soul who takes on this job. That's the point. Even a *great* moderator, like r$, has to work periodically; the backlog of unreleased comp.sources.unix postings is pretty long, and he doesn't include most of the "bugs" discussions, which goes on in other newsgroups. >- A moderator can insulate us to some extent from silly crap, like obvious > Trojan horses, viruses, or screwed-up postings that won't uudecode or > de-arc properly. That's what contributes to much of the delay. Brandon Allberry's comp.sources.misc moderation lets a lot more through, and he's done a good job of keeping turnaround up, but it takes time and effort to do a decent job - how do you do real testing on binaries? Sure, you can reject those without useful ASCII documentation (sorry, but I really dislike postings that leave all description of what they are *inside* the arc.) But without sources you can't do much more than cursory sanity check. -- # Thanks; # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs # So we got out our parsers and debuggers and lexical analyzers and various # implements of destruction and went off to clean up the tty driver...