dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (11/28/89)
Recently I saw some discussion about delays in stuff getting posted to comp.binaries.ibm.pc. Several months ago I raised the issue of a "rush" category for comp.binaries.ibm.pc software. Such software would be untested or only very minimally tested, and posted immediately. Public opinion was greatly *against* doing this. Currently I test everything posted to my own satisfaction, and I'm a fairly picky user. The speed with which postings appear is thus governed by the speed at which I do the testing. The actual posting process is not the bottleneck. If there is widespread sentiment in favor of software being posted untested or being tested much less throughly, you will get a greater volume of software. But it will be of more uncertain quality and will be accompanied by much sparser editorial comments from me. So ultimately what you want the user want is roughly what you will get. I will follow the raging discussion (and flame wars) that will likely follow. Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
ODX@PSUVM.BITNET (Tim Larson) (11/28/89)
Personally, I wouldn't like to see a *rush* category of untested programs in c.p.i.p. The quality of the postings and the additional benefit of good comments included with each posting makes the extra time involved worth it to me. I think Rahul has been doing a great job, and I don't know many who would do better. Thanks, -Tim Larson odx@psuvm.bitnet
las) (11/29/89)
In article <1128@cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes: }Recently I saw some discussion about delays in stuff getting posted to }comp.binaries.ibm.pc. }Currently I test everything posted to my own satisfaction, and I'm a }fairly picky user. }If there is widespread sentiment in favor of software being posted }untested or being tested much less throughly, you will get a greater }volume of software. [But quality of postings will suffer] }I will follow the raging discussion (and flame wars) that will likely }follow. You won't get any flames from me. What amazes me is that you can find the time to do that kind of job. It's rather a lot more than I would expect of someone donating his/her time. I remember well the chaos that ensued when there was no moderation (the "immoderate" times?): high-volume posts of trash and/or demo programs, posting of discussion and flames with no binaries, and threats of termination from the back- bone. I, for one, thank you for the job you do. Since the net is not a cost-free service which is nevertheless available free or below cost to many (most?) of its end-users, I prefer that the postings be of reasonably high quality. regards, Larry -- Signed: Larry A. Shurr (cbema!las@att.ATT.COM or att!cbema!las) Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave (With apologies to the real thing. The above represents my views only.) (Please note my mailing address. Mail sent directly to cbnews doesn't make it.)
usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) (11/29/89)
I prefer rigorous testing of software, before posting it to c.b.i.p. I am willing to suffer through the delays to get a quality product, as free from viruses/trojans/etc. as can be assured. Keep up the good work, Rahul, and thank you. In the rare case that original ideas Kenneth J. Hendrickson N8DGN are found here, I am responsible. Owen W328, E. Lansing, MI 48825 Internet: kjh@pollux.usc.edu UUCP: ...!uunet!pollux!kjh
bob@omni.com (Bob Weissman) (11/29/89)
In article <1128@cirrusl.UUCP>, dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
- Currently I test everything posted to my own satisfaction, and I'm a
- fairly picky user. The speed with which postings appear is thus
- governed by the speed at which I do the testing. The actual posting
- process is not the bottleneck.
-
- If there is widespread sentiment in favor of software being posted
- untested or being tested much less throughly, you will get a greater
- volume of software. But it will be of more uncertain quality and will
- be accompanied by much sparser editorial comments from me. So
- ultimately what you want the user want is roughly what you will get.
What about having multiple testers? I'll bet there are responsible
citizens out there who would be happy to test submissions prior to
release.
I for one think Rahul is doing a fine job and the quality of his
testing and "editorial comments" makes this one of the more useful
newsgroups.
--
Bob Weissman
Internet: bob@omni.com
UUCP: ...!{apple,pyramid,sgi,tekbspa,uunet}!koosh!bobdhw@itivax.iti.org (David H. West) (11/29/89)
In article <5558@cps3xx.UUCP> hendrick@frith.UUCP (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes: |I prefer rigorous testing of software, before posting it to c.b.i.p. I |am willing to suffer through the delays to get a quality product, as |free from viruses/trojans/etc. as can be assured. Keep up the good |work, Rahul, and thank you. I agree.
fredex@cg-atla.UUCP (Fred Smith) (11/29/89)
In article <89332.093840ODX@PSUVM.BITNET> ODX@PSUVM.BITNET (Tim Larson) writes: >Personally, I wouldn't like to see a *rush* category of untested programs >in c.p.i.p. The quality of the postings and the additional benefit of good >comments included with each posting makes the extra time involved worth it >to me. I think Rahul has been doing a great job, and I don't know many who >would do better. > I Agree !! Fred
lnh@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (louis.n.holzman) (11/29/89)
I have no problem with delays in postings to c.p.i.b, but I would suggeest that they not be posted until all of it is available to avoid the flurry of comments and flames about partial postings.
hartung@amos.ling.ucsd.edu (Jeff Hartung) (11/29/89)
In article <4511@itivax.iti.org> dhw@itivax.UUCP (David H. West) writes: >In article <5558@cps3xx.UUCP> hendrick@frith.UUCP (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes: >|I prefer rigorous testing of software, before posting it to c.b.i.p. I >|am willing to suffer through the delays to get a quality product, as >|free from viruses/trojans/etc. as can be assured. Keep up the good >|work, Rahul, and thank you. > >I agree. If the bottleneck in getting binaries posted is due to the amount of work required (of Rahul) to adequately test the programs prior to posting, then maybe a solution to all this would be to have additional people test the programs, send them back to Rahul when they are done being tested, and then have Rahul post the programs, perhaps after checking out any things that concerned the tester. These "co-moderators" would follow Rahul's criteria in evaluating the code (eg. Does it do what it is supposed to? Is it free from bombs, trojans and virii? Is it PD or ShareWare? etc.) and he would pick those who would do the job for him. Requests for co-moderators would be posted to c.b.i.p.d and replacements could be obtaqined (same source) as needed. Opinions? --Jeff Hartung-- Disclaimer: My opinions only, etc., etc., BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!... ARPA - hartung@amos.ucsd.edu UUCP - ucsd!amos.ucsd.edu!hartung
drv@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (dennis.r.vogel) (11/29/89)
In article <5558@cps3xx.UUCP>, usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes: > I prefer rigorous testing of software, before posting it to c.b.i.p. I > am willing to suffer through the delays to get a quality product, as > free from viruses/trojans/etc. as can be assured. Keep up the good > work, Rahul, and thank you. > Ditto from me. I don't find all the postings useful (doubt anyone does) but those that are useful to me are always high quality. I'm not in a big rush to get garbage. Keep up the good work, Rahul. Dennis R. Vogel AT&T Bell Laboratories Lincroft, NJ
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/29/89)
I don't know where you find the time as it is. I know better than most how much work is can be to moderate a group, and all I have to do is read the submissions sent to me, not decode, download and test! In other words, keep doing what you're doing, in the way you see fit. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
taine@bibs.FIDONET.ORG (Taine Gilliam) (11/29/89)
In a message of <Nov 29 04:56>, Rahul Dhesi (1:372/42) writes: >Several months ago I raised the issue of a "rush" category for >comp.binaries.ibm.pc software. Such software would be untested or only >very minimally tested, and posted immediately. Public opinion was >greatly *against* doing this. > i still would NOT like to see a "rush" group. >Currently I test everything posted to my own satisfaction, and I'm a >fairly picky user. The speed with which postings appear is thus >governed by the speed at which I do the testing. The actual posting >process is not the bottleneck. > quite understandable and desirable. my only nit is with the authors that release stuff faster than you can review it. this is going to happen in any quality distribution service though. as a member of several Fido related software groups i believe your reviews and comments to be a GREAT enhancement over the simple good/bad evaluation i often see. taine -- Taine Gilliam - at FidoNet node 1:372/42 w/ Magpie BBS UUCP: uunet!bibs!taine INTERNET: taine@bibs.FIDONET.ORG
frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) (11/29/89)
I am quite happy with the current situation, but I would like to make one
small suggestion, namely that the moderator post every now and then a list
of the submissions currenly being considered for posting.
-frisk
--
Fridrik Skulason University of Iceland
frisk@rhi.hi.is Computing Sevices
Guvf yvar vagragvbanyyl yrsg oynax .................rjd@pdntg1.paradyne.com (0000-Ronald J. Dean(0000)) (11/30/89)
I concur with the opinion that Rahul is doing a great job with c.b.i.p. I
think the quality of the posts are very good. And I do software test for a
living. If you need any help Rahul, please let me know. (Although my 286
machine is only a monochrome.)
RJ Dean AT&T Paradyne
...!uunet!pdn.paradyne.com!rjd Mail Stop LG-133
8545 126th Av. N.
Largo, FL 34649svirsky@ttidca.TTI.COM (Bill Svirsky) (11/30/89)
In article <1128@cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
+If there is widespread sentiment in favor of software being posted
+untested or being tested much less throughly, you will get a greater
+volume of software. But it will be of more uncertain quality and will
+be accompanied by much sparser editorial comments from me. So
+ultimately what you want the user want is roughly what you will get.
I think you're doing a helluva job Rahul. I'm glad there are people like
you that make my life so much easier. No more wading through tons of
garbage to get the useful programs.
As to the testing, keep it up. The comments you add to the postings,
based on your tests, are often as/more useful than the accompanying docs.
One compromise I've thought of that may work; post a list of programs
in the queue, in the order they will get processed, once a week or so.
If there is a program that someone wants ASAP, they can send you mail.
If you get enough requests for a particular program, move it to the top
of the queue. Better yet, set up a special mail address to which people
can mail their requests. Have a specific format for the requests and a
simple program, or shell script, to tally the requests.
--
Bill Svirsky, Citicorp+TTI, 3100 Ocean Park Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90405
Work phone: 213-450-9111 x2597
svirsky@ttidca.tti.com | ...!{csun,psivax,rdlvax,retix}!ttidca!svirskykleonard@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM (Ken Leonard) (11/30/89)
In article <53963@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
* I don't know where you find the time as it is. I know better than most
* how much work is can be to moderate a group, and all I have to do is
* read the submissions sent to me, not decode, download and test!
* In other words, keep doing what you're doing, in the way you see fit.
Ditto.nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (11/30/89)
Yuuuuccccckkkk! If I read one more mushy posting praising Rahul to the heavens, I'm gonna puke! Not that the man doesn't deserve praise (he does), but c'mon, guys! -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Live up to the light thou hast, and more will be granted thee. A recession now appears more than 2 years away -- John D. Mathon, 4 Oct 1989. I think killing is value-neutral in and of itself. -- Gary Strand, 8 Nov 1989. Liberals run this country, by and large. -- Clayton Cramer, 20 Nov 1989. Shut up and mind your Canadian business, you meddlesome foreigner. -- TK, 23 N.
heiby@falkor.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (11/30/89)
Fridrik Skulason (frisk@rhi.hi.is) writes: > small suggestion, namely that the moderator post every now and then a list > of the submissions currenly being considered for posting. I like this suggestion, as well. Sometimes, I see something interesting on Compuserve. I would be useful to know if someone had already sent it to R.D. for c.b.i.p. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com Moderator: comp.newprod "Life is indeed an inexplicable sequence of imponderable surprises."
andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) (11/30/89)
I applaud Rahul for the time he has put into moderating the
newsgroup. I like things the way they are and do not mind waiting for
tested software to appear. If it appeared more frequently, I don't
know when I would find the time to do real work :-) However, I am not
adverse to improvements suggested by others where there are additional
software testers in addition to Rahul.
--
Andy Toy, Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Internet: andy@mks.com
35 King Street North, Waterloo, UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!andy
Ontario, CANADA N2J 2W9 Phone: 519/884-2251 FAX: 519/884-8861msschaa@cs.vu.nl (Schaap MS) (11/30/89)
I haven't received parts 6-9 of set C either, but I have the next posting (APL or so). I suppose this means that part 6-9 are lost on the way to my site? Michael
stevel@phred.UUCP (Steve Leach) (12/01/89)
In article <89332.093840ODX@PSUVM.BITNET> ODX@PSUVM.BITNET (Tim Larson) writes: >Personally, I wouldn't like to see a *rush* category of untested programs >in c.p.i.p. The quality of the postings and the additional benefit of good >comments included with each posting makes the extra time involved worth it >to me. I think Rahul has been doing a great job, and I don't know many who >would do better. > >Thanks, This sums it up for me. -- What can I say, fuvg unccraf. Returns to sender: uw-beaver!pilchuck!seahcx!phred!stevel
) (12/01/89)
I don't understand the latest batch of messages. Does this newsgroup have a
FTP site similar to that of Simtel?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Santanu Sircar BITNET: ssircar@umaecs.bitnet
University of Massachusetts/Amherst INTERNET: ssircar@ecs.umass.edu
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
"A pig ate his fill of acorns under an oak tree and then started to root
around the tree. A crow remarked, `You should not do this. If you lay bare
the roots, the tree will wither and die.' `Let it die,' said the pig. `Who
cares so long as there are acorns?'"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (12/01/89)
Since none of you people has the MOXIE to work up a flame for Rahul (despite his begging you...), here's a suggestion you can all flame to a delicate crisp: What about files-queue postings to let people know what's coming, and an anonymous ftp number for somebody who's desperate for untested stuff? Not everybody can ftp, but they can always wait for the tested postings. (Doin' a great job, R.D.! Howz about making the job harder? :-)
ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi LASK) (12/01/89)
Ditto for practically everything that has been said. Several postings have suggested a list of the queue to let the users know what is in list. I agree. Furthermore, from the authors' point of view (yours truly included), it would be useful to know that one still is in the queue, and to know where in the queue. I am in no hurry, since I can always announce updates / new programs for ftp, but this information of the binaries queue would be nice to have. I know that it is imposing still more load on Rahul, but there must be a way to automate this as far as possible. ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi (Site 128.214.12.3) School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: vakk::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
kleonard@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM (Ken Leonard) (12/02/89)
In article <2870@phred.UUCP> stevel@phred.UUCP (Steve Leach) writes: * In article <89332.093840ODX@PSUVM.BITNET> ODX@PSUVM.BITNET (Tim Larson) * writes: * >Personally, I wouldn't like to see a *rush* category of untested programs * >in c.p.i.p. The quality of the postings and the additional benefit of good * >comments included with each posting makes the extra time involved worth it * >to me. . . . * This sums it up for me. DITTO.
chasm@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Charles Marslett) (12/02/89)
Charles Marslett chasm@attctc.dallas.tx.us
fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred Freeland) (12/05/89)
I agree with the poster that suggested perhaps some kind of small list,
perhaps a preview of coming attractions. Now the consumers of c.b.i.p postings
have no way of knowing whether the queue is empty or if there's just a lot
of stuff in testing and evaluation. Some little teasers would be nice to
keep up the interest. I agree that Rahul is doing a great job maintaining high
standards for the stuff that gets posted.
--
Frederick F. Freeland Jr. "Of all the things I've lost, Microsoft Corporation I miss my mind the most!" One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052 (206) 882-8080 internet: fredf@,microsoft.beaver.washington.EDU arpanet: fredf%microsoft@uw-beaver.ARPA
uucp: {decvax,decwrl,intelca,sco,sun,trsvax,uunet,uw-beaver}!microsoft!fredf Opinions expressed over this signature are my OWN and not those of my employer! ttp@lanl.gov (T T Phillips) (12/06/89)
Just one more vote to keep the program review process as it has been. I am very pleased with the review process that the binaries are subjected to. The delay is a small price to pay for the benefits of a careful evaluation of the submitted software. Terry Phillips Los Alamos National Laboratory ttp@beta.lanl.gov