boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) (05/26/88)
In article <3186@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >In article <1555@bu-tyng.bu.edu> draper@bu-tyng.UUCP (dday) writes: [Posting of sources to c.b.i.p.d and c.s.i.p] > >Likely, most sites expire articles in the .d groups much faster, so >posting any source here will result in a lot of people saying they >didn't get it, could you please repost. Better would be to send it to >comp.sources.misc. > >Better still, we need comp.sources.msdos. Why doesn't somebody propose >it? The net population likes sources, so it should have no trouble >getting approved, and it might even encourage more source postings. >-- >Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi OK. Lets talk about it. We could use more source postings, provided the authors are willing to distribute them. However, several problems arise when dealing with sources. There are several different languages, and several compilers for each language, and they are not necessarily compatible with each other. If possible, someone, possibly a moderator for the group, should be able to port the sources between, say, MSC and TurboC, or there should be a decided standard. I think this is the main problem when dealing with MS-DOS sources. ============================================================================ Brian O'Neill, MS-DOS Software Exchange Coordinator ArpaNet: boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu UUCP : {(backbones),harvard,rutgers,et. al.}!ulowell!hawk!boneill