kim@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) (07/23/88)
[ "The best government, is no government at all." ] The Subject line says it all. However if you don't know what I'm talking about, here's the explanation from the 1st part posting: > As promised in my posting of July 3, 1988, here is the bindings/include > update to the ARP distribution (to ARP v1.1a). The Manx .lib's are now > compatible with Manx v3.6, and a few bugs in the .lib's have been fixed, > as has the arpbase.h include file. A new function for both compilers > is included (see AhOh.c). > > Note that none of the ARP *user* level commands have been changed, so > problems (perceived or otherwise) with wildcard use/expansion, etc. are > unchanged. I do not know when/if any of these will be addressed, nor > whether ARP will be updated for compatibility with release 1.3 ("RSN" :-) ) > of the WB commands. > > I am posting this update here in comp.sys.amiga since this is where the > original ARP v1.1 distribution was posted. I have know idea as to the > status/distribution of the alt.sources.amiga group, and have seen only > 1 item posted there since it's inception. Further, I note without > additional comment, that *NOTHING* has been received at this site in > either of the "comp" moderated groups since July 8, 1988, much less this > update. > > As may be ... I've split this distribution into 4 postings, each slightly > more than 25K to try and avoid problems for gateways onto other nets (such > as ARPA), or overflowing anyone's spool, etc. I will post one part per > day. /kim -- UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,uunet,oliveb,ames}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 CIS: 76535,25
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/24/88)
In article <9cRfe419OT1010cAkyg@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, kim@amdahl.UUCP writes: > I am posting this update here in comp.sys.amiga since this is where the > original ARP v1.1 distribution was posted. I have know idea as to the > status/distribution of the alt.sources.amiga group, and have seen only > 1 item posted there since it's inception. Further, I note without > additional comment, that *NOTHING* has been received at this site in > either of the "comp" moderated groups since July 8, 1988, much less this > update. I tried to send you mail on this, but some site near you guys thinks I'm trying to make it talk to itself. We haven't been posting anything to the alt group because we haven't been receiving much to post. Now, I know that it doesn't get the distribution of comp.sources.amiga, but we *are* archived on uunet... and we will publish code that's sent in to us in a timely manner. We have had a bit of a bobble in our service... sugar went down last sunday night. We have replaced it with a 386-based box, and added a Telebit Trailblazer. Once we have our files transferred over we should be better than new. I'm sorry if you're disappointed in our performance. We might be, too. But we can't send stuff if there's nothing to send... and we have been trying to avoid just publishing our own code to avoid the understandable accusations of excessive ego that would likely ensue. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
kim@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) (07/26/88)
In article <2329@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <9cRfe419OT1010cAkyg@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, kim@amdahl.UUCP writes: > > I am posting this update here in comp.sys.amiga since this is where the > > original ARP v1.1 distribution was posted. I have know idea as to the > > status/distribution of the alt.sources.amiga group, and have seen only > > 1 item posted there since it's inception. Further, I note without > > additional comment, that *NOTHING* has been received at this site in > > either of the "comp" moderated groups since July 8, 1988, much less this > > update. > > > I'm sorry if you're disappointed in our performance. We might be, too. But > we can't send stuff if there's nothing to send... and we have been trying to > avoid just publishing our own code to avoid the understandable accusations of > excessive ego that would likely ensue. Don't get so defensive Peter ... I said nothing WRT the performance of the alt.sources.amiga, other than to factually state that (without comment) only one posting has been made there. The point though is that the group's propagation throughout the net is "questionable" ... many sites refuse to carry the alt.* subnet for whatever reasons, as is their right. I choose not to contribute to this fractionating [is that a word ?] into the "haves" and "have-nots". It's just that simple! /kim -- UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,uunet,oliveb,ames}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 CIS: 76535,25
childs@cadnetix.COM (David Childs) (07/26/88)
In article <9dZxb6crpX1010qCKEs@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> kim@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) writes: >In article <2329@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> I'm sorry if you're disappointed in our performance. We might be, too. But >> we can't send stuff if there's nothing to send... and we have been trying to >> avoid just publishing our own code to avoid the understandable accusations of >> excessive ego that would likely ensue. > >The point though is that the group's propagation throughout the net is >"questionable" ... many sites refuse to carry the alt.* subnet for whatever >reasons, as is their right. > >/kim Although I like the idea of a group to get small technical source and executables out on the net, I think that the alt.* method is not the best way. I have tried to look at alt.sources.amiga and get 'not a news group.' I really think that the type of postings Peter wants to be put in the alt groups would be best handled in comp.sys.amiga/.tech. Non-pure tech source chunks can be posted in c.s.a and tech ones in c.s.a.t. I would like to get more source from the moderated groups also, but I hate the idea of missing some great source or source chunks because I don't get alt groups. I get the feeling that I would never get the BEST STUFF. These are just my opinions. No flames directed at Peter or anyone else. One idea that I had for the moderated groups, would be to have the moderators post the stuff they get, source untested, and executable only checked to see if it runs, and then they can post the results of whether or not a program passes the tests at a later date. Each posting would be preceeded by: XXXXX part n of m - UNTESTED - USE AT YOUR OWN RISK! And at a later date, a little message: XXXXX source and executable which were posted n days ago have been looked over and have no computer distruct bugs in them. (Or whatever the moderators test for.) This way, people like Peter will get code very soon that they can test themselves if they want to use something, and people like me who get to postings weeks after I get them can wait until the moderators stamp their approval on a program. Also, Peter and those like him could offer to test some of the moderated postings for the moderators. They could then post a message saying: TESTED BY Peter da Silva - PASSED TESTS Just an idea. I have no idea how much more work this would be, or how flooded the moderated groups would become. If this is a bad idea, I'm sure someone will let me know. David David Childs Internet: childs@cadnetix.COM Cadnetix Corp UUCP: cadnetix!childs 5775 Flatiron Pkwy {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!childs Boulder, CO 80301