abcscagz@csuna.csun.edu (Jeff Boeing) (05/02/89)
Back in the good old days before c.b.i.p became moderated, anyone who wanted
to share his binaries with the usenet world was free to.
It is true that since the group became moderated we've seen an (almost)
constant flux of archiving, dearchiving, and *NIX-like utilities; however,
we have also seen times when Rahul's site has gone down and the only thing
we got on c.b.i.p was dead space and a HUGE backlog of programs. Once
again, I am led to understand that the posting of the long-awaited PC
NetHack version 2.3 will be delayed due to problems at Rahul's end.
A moderated group for pc-compatible binaries serves a necessary
function. But we need a place where ANYONE can just leave a program for
anyone's consideration, with no guarantees and no strings attached.
This group fails in this function, especially since posting binaries
here is considered in "bad taste".
How about comp.binaries.ibm.pc.unmoderated? Or, if that's too
long a name, WE keep comp.binaries.ibm.pc, and Rahul gets comp.binaries.
ibm.pc.digest or something.
Regards,
--
Jeff Boeing: ...!csun.edu!csuna!abcscagz (formerly tracer@stb.UUCP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thank you for shopping at Pons & Fleischman's used reactor shop."
-- Maarten Litmaath, rec.games.hackhartung@amos.ling.ucsd.edu (Jeff Hartung) (05/03/89)
In article <1944@csuna.csun.edu> abcscagz@csuna.csun.edu (Jeff Boeing) writes: > >Back in the good old days before c.b.i.p became moderated, anyone who wanted >to share his binaries with the usenet world was free to. > It is true that since the group became moderated we've seen an (almost) >constant flux of archiving, dearchiving, and *NIX-like utilities; however, >we have also seen times when Rahul's site has gone down and the only thing >we got on c.b.i.p was dead space and a HUGE backlog of programs. Once >again, I am led to understand that the posting of the long-awaited PC >NetHack version 2.3 will be delayed due to problems at Rahul's end. As the person who compiled and submitted PC NetHack 2.3e to c.b.i.p., I feel that I should comment, least it seem that I blamed Rahul in my announcement to rec.games.hack for the delay. I have, to date, submitted NetHack to him 3 times. The first time I was told by him that the game would be posted around April 15 or possibly earlier. Around the 8th of that month he asked me if it was debugged enough to not be followed by a replacement in a few months. I told him that the only replacement would be 3.0, which would be quite a way off as it would need a bit of tinkering to get it to compiled. About the same time, someone posted an article to rec.games.hack saying that they had compiled the game with TC 2.0 using my posted fixes and could not get the game to restore saved games. Seeing this as a major problem, I immediately told Rahul *not* to post what I had sent, but to wait until I could recompile the game with the fix for that bug. I sent the second, improved NetHack to him a while later, only to discover a couple of days later that there was a bad pointer I couldn't locate that caused the game to crash when an object was polymorphed with a wand of polymorph. I sent Rahul another note saying he could ditch the latest NetHack I'd sent and I'd look for that bug. I got the bugfix for *that* mailed to me, patched zap.c, recompiled and then tested the hell out of the game. I only sent the most recent NETHACK.EXE to Rahul last week. Meanwhile, he has been reportedly very ill, but promised to resume c.b.i.p. postings early this week (of 5/1). Now, as to an unmoderated newsgroup, there are some problems. (1) Viruses, trojans, bombs, etc. (2) Reposts and garbage that dosn't work, which is costly to Usenet recipients and unnecessary. (3) Stuff that is copyrighted gets posted. (4) Et cetera. The unmoderated c.b.i.p. was about to be closed down due to the above difficulties. It exists now only because it is moderated. > A moderated group for pc-compatible binaries serves a necessary >function. But we need a place where ANYONE can just leave a program for >anyone's consideration, with no guarantees and no strings attached. >This group fails in this function, especially since posting binaries >here is considered in "bad taste". > How about comp.binaries.ibm.pc.unmoderated? Or, if that's too >long a name, WE keep comp.binaries.ibm.pc, and Rahul gets comp.binaries. >ibm.pc.digest or something. > >Regards, >-- >Jeff Boeing: ...!csun.edu!csuna!abcscagz (formerly tracer@stb.UUCP) >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >"Thank you for shopping at Pons & Fleischman's used reactor shop." > -- Maarten Litmaath, rec.games.hack --Jeff Hartung-- Disclaimer: My opinions only, etc., etc., BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!... ARPA - hartung@amos.ucsd.edu UUCP - ucsd!amos.ucsd.edu!hartung
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) (05/03/89)
In article <1944@csuna.csun.edu>, abcscagz@csuna.csun.edu (Jeff Boeing) writes: > [ perceived problems with c.b.i.p deleted ] > How about comp.binaries.ibm.pc.unmoderated? Or, if that's too > long a name, WE keep comp.binaries.ibm.pc, and Rahul gets comp.binaries. > ibm.pc.digest or something. Why don't you just create an alt.binaries.ibm.pc? You might even get someone to post to it. :-) As for 2 binary groups in the main hierarchy, I doubt that you will get that approved. Too many poeple think binaries are a waste of time to begin with, let alone having all the binaries posted twice. Personally, I think Rahul is doing a GREAT job, and don't see the need for any more groups. I am just happy that the binaries get here at all, I don't care if they take a few days extra. +-------------------+-------------------------------------+------------------+ | Bob Sloane \Internet: SLOANE@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU/Anything I said is | | Computer Center \ BITNET: SLOANE@UKANVAX.BITNET / my opinion, not my | | University of Kansas\ AT&T: (913) 864-0444 / employer's. | +-----------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------+
rbq@iforgetmyname.LBP.HARRIS.COM (Robert Quattlebaum) (05/04/89)
In article <1944@csuna.csun.edu> abcscagz@csuna.csun.edu (Jeff Boeing) writes: > >Back in the good old days before c.b.i.p became moderated, anyone who wanted >to share his binaries with the usenet world was free to. [Arguments for unmoderated PC binaries group deleted] >function. But we need a place where ANYONE can just leave a program for >anyone's consideration, with no guarantees and no strings attached. [more stuff deleted] I agree (for better or worse). I too would like a constant flow of as-is stuff with which to play. It would also be nice to post without filtering and the associated delay. ----- My two bits. That's probably all it's worth. R. Quattlebaum The above opinions are mine and are not to "God is love, not religion" be employed with those of my confuser. galbp!iforgetmyname.LBP.HARRIS.COM!rbq
jimmy@pyramid.pyramid.com (Jimmy Aitken) (05/04/89)
In article <7788@galbp.LBP.HARRIS.COM> rbq@iforgetmyname.UUCP (Robert Quattlebaum) writes: >In article <1944@csuna.csun.edu> abcscagz@csuna.csun.edu (Jeff Boeing) writes: >> >>Back in the good old days before c.b.i.p became moderated, anyone who wanted >>to share his binaries with the usenet world was free to. > >[Arguments for unmoderated PC binaries group deleted] > >I agree (for better or worse). I too would like a constant flow of as-is >stuff with which to play. It would also be nice to post without filtering >and the associated delay. I remember when I started reading net sources and a substatial number of posting to this newsgroup was "Where can I get... " or "I missed part ..." or "Please send me money (:-)". Mod sources was where I regularly read and kept source postings and the S/N ratio was high. comp.binaries.ibm.pc also suffered from this sort of thing before it became moderated. Now I know if there's something in c.b.i.p, then it'll be something (potentailly) of interest and not another request for a repost. "That's what c.b.i.p.d is for," you may reply. Indeed that's what it is for, but how many people would use it as such if they could post directly to c.b.i.p directly. Alt.sources started up as anyone can post source to it without moderation, and yet I still see articles of the form outlined above. In our spool area there are 11 alt.sources articles, two of which can be considered as source and possible one more (it's only 10 lines). C.b.i.p hasn't been as regular as it could have been recently, but at least there have been no mispostings here. Personally I would much prefer to see this than wrong cross postings. If nothing else it make archiving much easier. If anyone has a summary of the original discussion about c.b.i.p, then posting it would probably save a lot of bandwidth. jimmy -- -- -m------ Jimmy Aitken ---mmm----- On Loan from: Pyramid Technology Ltd., U.K. -----mmmmm--- To: Pyramid Technology Corp, U.S.A -------mmmmmmm- {uunet, decwrl}!pyramid!jimmy
maa@nbires.NBI.COM (Mark Armbrust) (05/04/89)
IMHO, what we need are comp.sources.ibm.pc and comp.sources.ibm.pc.d. It seems to me that most of the problems with an unmoderated binaries group can be solved with a source group. What people seem to want is a place to post (show off?) their clever hacks for the PC. What I would expect to see would be a bunch of little programs in the less than 500 line range that wouldn't be too hard to port/transliterate to a new compiler. By reading the source code, I can be fairly sure that there will be no ill effects from running the program. Big or generally useful sources should be posted to existing source groups; binaries should be posted to the appropriate moderated group lest we have 193 different versions of keyboard extenders floating around the net [pick any handy utility you have that works "a little better" than the last version posted and post it yourself, etc.] Mark Armbrust maa@nbires.nbi.com maa@nbires.UUCP
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (05/04/89)
In article <1944@csuna.csun.edu> abcscagz@csuna.csun.edu (Jeff Boeing) writes: >Back in the good old days before c.b.i.p became moderated, anyone who wanted >to share his binaries with the usenet world was free to. I understand your feelings, Jeff, but there will never be an unmoderated binaries group, at least outside of "alt". There are several reasons for this: 1) Volume. When Rahul has time to work on c.b.i.p, it generally becomes the #1 group by volume on Usenet, even with heavy pruning and backlogs. An unmoderated group would have higher volume (perhaps increasing total traffic on the net by 25%, increasing traffic in "comp" by 50%) and significantly lower quality, with lots of crippled demos and shareware of questionable value. Given limited time and volume constraints, binaries group moderators have generally favored utilities over games. Every time I see someone demanding an unmoderated group it is almost always because a game posting has been delayed. The world will not end if you have to wait an additional two or three weeks for nethack. 2) Security. Without a moderator to try each program, it would just be too tempting for people to post trojan horses and viruses, accidentally or deliberately. Yes, I know that something bad might slip past Rahul, but at least there is some quality control. Back when there was a backbone cabal, said cabal basically insisted that there be no unmoderated binaries groups. Sys admins of large sites are almost 100% against you on this one. > A moderated group for pc-compatible binaries serves a necessary >function. But we need a place where ANYONE can just leave a program for >anyone's consideration, with no guarantees and no strings attached. NO, because such a group would quickly become far and away the #1 volume group on the net, and the quality of its contents would be very low. >This group fails in this function, especially since posting binaries >here is considered in "bad taste". Not just "in bad taste." Don't do it. -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
davidsen@sungod.steinmetz (William Davidsen) (05/04/89)
Let's remember the "good old days" before moderation.
a) some nice copyrighted programs got posted
b) at least one trojan horse got posted
c) lots of begware, crippleware, etc, got posted
d) duplicate copies got posted, and when someone wanted a missing
copy of something, they only had to ask and 3-8 people would
repost the missing part, and often the whole damn program to
avoid "wasting bandwidth with requests for repost."
e) volume was huge, if binaries hadn't gotten out of c.s.i.p the
group might have been dropped by some major sites.
I think that bulleting boards are great places for unmitigated (er,
unmoderated) crap. I can't convince myself that an unmoderated group is
worth having. However, you can always propose it, although if any
serious number of sites refuse to carry it, the vote doesn't matter
much.
"Fast track" postings
All it would take is one more commercial program or virus and the
credibility of this group would be badly hurt. I would rather see a
group which is unmoderated than any postings in this group which are not
tested to the fullest extent Rahul's time allows.
By all means form alt.binaries.ibm.pc, but let's keep this group a
tight ship, so there won't be a move to restrict it further. I don't
want to have bandwidth stolen by stuff that is less tested when we can
usually fill the available bandwidth of the group with things which are
tested. What program could possibly have such value that it needs to be
sent immediately? A game? A utility which puts 50MB on a 360k floppy
using the standard IBM drives?
USENET isn't a BBS, and I think the excelent moderation which has
taken place so far has lent it an air of professionalish which allows
commercial sites to justify carrying it. Let's create an alt group for
the impatient, and keep this group just as is.
"If it ain't broke don't fix it!"
bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM)
{uunet | philabs}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -mejdm1@eds1.UUCP (Jon McCown) (05/04/89)
In article <7088@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, maa@nbires.NBI.COM (Mark Armbrust) writes: > IMHO, what we need are comp.sources.ibm.pc and comp.sources.ibm.pc.d. > (show off?) their clever hacks for the PC. > He speeks sooth, binaries are fine for turnkey applications, but I would posit that most of us would like to see _how_ it was done and maybe contribute mods and improvements-- this is NETland not ********land (insert the name of your (least)favorite executable only retailer here) "...use the SOURCE Luke" - DECWARS - J.D. McCown -- J.D. McCown - RCSG Director - Senate of Pennsylvania psuvax1!eds1!jdm1 (this space intentionally "OS/2 -- Just say no" jdm1@eds1.eds.com filled with this text) "MS-DOS >>smirk<< "
keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (05/04/89)
In article <1944@csuna.csun.edu> abcscagz@csuna.csun.edu (Jeff Boeing) writes:
< How about comp.binaries.ibm.pc.unmoderated? Or, if that's too
<long a name, WE keep comp.binaries.ibm.pc, and Rahul gets comp.binaries.
<ibm.pc.digest or something.
<
Make it alt.binaries (and perhaps alt.binaries.[pc|mac|amiga]) and
that should take care of it. Except for fascist sites that refuse
to carry the alt groups (do they even ban alt.sources?)
kEITHemrwittma@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Martin R. Wittmann) (05/05/89)
In article <210@eds1.UUCP> jdm1@eds1.UUCP (Jon McCown) writes: >In article <7088@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, maa@nbires.NBI.COM (Mark Armbrust) writes: >> IMHO, what we need are comp.sources.ibm.pc and comp.sources.ibm.pc.d. ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ >> > ...most of us would like to see _how_ it was done >and maybe contribute mods and improvements-- Hear, hear! <and> double hear, hear! I vote for a sources group! a PHILOSOPHICAL NOTE (i.e. IMHO (-:} ): What IS the future of computer use in our society? Will it become a means for anyone to extend her mind and broaden her understanding of the universe, or will it become a means of control and exploitation, through which those who ``know'' profit at the expense of those who don't. With the steady increase of computer capabilities, reduction of cost, and parallel advancement in software design and development (e.g. CASE tools, Knuth's WEB), we are getting closer to being able to package and distribute not only *function*, but *understanding*. Computers are the best currently available medium to support this desireable development. Consider this: When our cars malfunction, we are generally dependent on someone else to fix it because we lack the knowledge or tools to do it ourselves. Neither the knowledge or tools are easy for us to come by. Now in the long run, this profits no one. We are delayed, inconvenienced, made vulnerable (to the dishonest mechanic), and profit in no way from the experience (in fact, we may have to pay heavily--$$$). Maintenance is a necessary evil; the mechanic should hope to find something better to do in the long term. With computers, our fingers and keyboards are sufficient tools. And the knowledge COULD be self-contained. The most basic requirement for this is SOURCE CODE! Depending on the program, liberal comments, structure diagrams (and other structured systems design tools), WEB text (see Knuth above), etc., can assist in the transmission of knowledge and understanding (and actually make it possible for the user to UNDERSTAND the source code). Then the distinction between programmers and ``users'' can happily blur. We can become democratic co-developers; we can suit our individual tastes; we can learn unhindered as much as we wish. In the long run, we all SHALL profit. I am seriously examining the feasibility of using ONLY software for which I can get source code (whenever I have any choice in the matter). At present, because the limited amount of source available---and the limited utility of that source (hard to understand and thus modify)---this would be quite difficult, but it needn't always be so! If you are thinking, ``Ughh! Who would want to mess with all that code?" then you are a victim of our inadequate present ways of writing and documenting code. It CAN happen that one day, when the new program you've received to ``test drive'' bombs, you will be able to ``look under the hood'' and find it PERFECTLY OBVIOUS what to fix. Let's program (and distribute) not only function but UNDERSTANDING. Think about it the next time you code (or read someone else's). (off my soap box now...) martin wittmann mrwittma@phoenix.princeton.edu PRESS LEAK: The Free Software Foundation is the 0th foundation of Asimov's _Foundation_Trilogy_. DISCLAIMER: I am NOT one of their secret agents!
cb@cci632.UUCP (Just another hired gun (n2hkd)) (05/05/89)
I would recommend starting a mailing list first. For those of you who are daring and want to play, that would be just the thing. This method would elliviate(sp) the burden on the powers to be of the net. If the mailing list goes well, then you can then petition for a group. I would think that this would be a great group to do beta and alph testing for your soon to be world famous programmers!! Put my name on the mailing list.... Just some minor ramblings, it is friday isn't it....
mesmo@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Chris Johnson) (05/06/89)
In article <6520@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) writes: >In article <1944@csuna.csun.edu>, abcscagz@csuna.csun.edu (Jeff Boeing) writes: >> >> How about comp.binaries.ibm.pc.unmoderated? Or, if that's too > >Why don't you just create an alt.binaries.ibm.pc? You might even get someone >to post to it. :-) As for 2 binary groups in the main hierarchy, I doubt that >you will get that approved. Too many poeple think binaries are a waste of time >to begin with, let alone having all the binaries posted twice. Personally, I >think Rahul is doing a GREAT job, and don't see the need for any more groups. HEAR HEAR -- c.b.i.p. works fine, if you don't like it, start your OWN unmoderated group, and then YOU can deal with 50 Mb of garbage mail/day, copyright problems, etc etc. No one is saying you can't have an unmodearted group; what we ARE saying is, don't screw around with c.b.i.p. -- ============================================================================== Chris M Johnson === mesmo@portia.stanford.edu === "Grad school sucks rocks" "Imitation is the sincerest form of plagiarism" -- ALF ==============================================================================
heiby@falkor.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (05/07/89)
Just another hired gun (n2hkd) (cb@cci632.UUCP) writes: > I would recommend starting a mailing list first. For those of you > who are daring and want to play, that would be just the thing. Speaking as one of those who PAY, that would not be "just the thing". I log sender and receiver of mail larger than a certain size that does not originate or terminate on my system. I have not had to install software checks to stop abuses, as the one or two that have happened have been dealt with through education. This is your chance at education. This network is not free. It costs money. While it is true that I personally pay nothing for it, the company I work for does. I personally have to be able to justify the phone bills and the disk space used for Usenet. I have been asked about it by my boss' boss on more than one occasion. About the only thing I can think of that might be worse than another go at an unmoderated PC binaries group is a PC binaries mailing list. I have no desire to pay for megabytes worth of emailed binaries passing through my system. At least with a newsgroup, I have a chance at getting some benefit from it. My system already passes between 20 and 35 Megabytes per day. I already have most of a 150Meg disk drive devoted to Usenet. I'm responsible for getting some actual work done, too. The current system works. Maybe it doesn't work fast enough for a few blow-hards. I have no sympathy for them. Anyone who is so desparate to get the latest program should feel free to find a BBS or a system like Compuserve. Maybe when faced with actually having to pay real money for long distance or connect time, these jerks will figure out that they can afford to wait a couple of weeks. (Get a life, guys!) P.S. I did not find the rogue control message un-moderating comp.binaries.ibm.pc purportedly from "root@buster.UUCP (TSOS of buster)" of "Buster Unix Stuttgart" to be at all amusing, either. RWH. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com Moderator: comp.newprod "Life is indeed an inexplicable sequence of imponderable surprises."