root@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (03/21/85)
I personally believe the distribution of the GNU code in general to be critical to its purpose and USENET an excellent vehicle for this. I suggest that a newsgroup be formed, say net.sources.gnu, and advanced warning be given to allow sites to unsubscribe it (appropiate warnings that things may get large, I also assume most places would only need one site at their institution picking it up and internally re-distributing.) -Barry Shein, Boston University P.S. Brief note of general explanation: GNU ('G'nu is 'N'ot 'U'nix) is a project conceived by Richard Stallman [EMACS author, aka RMS] to re-write UNIX completely with the goal of putting the entire source into the public domain. It is both valuable and highly credible, we should all support it.
todd@bu-cs.UUCP (Todd Cooper) (03/22/85)
Let the net.sources.gnu begin --- EXCELLENT idea!! -- --------------------------- Todd Cooper (617) 424-9018 UUCP: ...!harvard!bu-cs!todd ARPA: todd%bu-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (03/23/85)
While GNU is a Good Thing, and Usenet is a good way to distribute it, net.sources.gnu is not the right answer. For one thing, there is only the one piece of code, the EMACS, that is ready to go out. My impression is that pieces of GNU will be slow in coming and well separated. For another thing, anything that is 1 MB is going to fill up half the disks on Usenet if it's just posted ala net.sources. It's going to have to be put out a bit at a time. I think that for GNU EMACS, mod.sources is the right place. If there is going to be a steady flow of GNU, a moderated newsgroup with one person responsible for putting it out at a pace that the net can handle is probably a good idea. Mark
schoff@cadtroy.UUCP (Martin Lee Schoffstall) (03/25/85)
> > I suggest that a newsgroup be formed, say net.sources.gnu, and advanced > warning be given to allow sites to unsubscribe it (appropiate warnings > that things may get large, I also assume most places would only need one > site at their institution picking it up and internally re-distributing.) > How about mod.souces.gnu? marty {wivax,bbncca,seismo}!ucadmus!schoff schoff@cadmus.ARPA
schoff@cadtroy.UUCP (Martin Lee Schoffstall) (03/26/85)
> For one thing, there is only the one piece of code, the EMACS, that > is ready to go out. My impression is that pieces of GNU will be > slow in coming and well separated. I have seen a list of "completed" software, that had about 20 to 30 titles. marty {wivax,bbncca,seismo}!ucadmus!schoff schoff@cadmus.ARPA
liang@cvl.UUCP (Eli Liang) (03/27/85)
> While GNU is a Good Thing, and Usenet is a good way to distribute it, > net.sources.gnu is not the right answer. > > For one thing, there is only the one piece of code, the EMACS, that > is ready to go out. My impression is that pieces of GNU will be > slow in coming and well separated. > Thats not exactly right. There are plenty of things done in GNU. Many utilities and programs. Just because rms only mentioned the public domain emacs in the Dr. Dobb's article..... -eli -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eli Liang --- University of Maryland Computer Vision Lab, (301) 454-4526 ARPA: liang@cvl, liang@lemuria, eli@mit-mc, eli@mit-prep CSNET: liang@cvl UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!cvl!liang
jlm@stl.UUCP (John Messenger) (03/27/85)
Here's another big YES for both the GNU project in general and the posting of GNU EMACS in particular. Good for Richard. -- John Messenger (..!mcvax!ukc!edcaad!stl!jlm)
kfl@hoxna.UUCP (Kenton Lee) (03/27/85)
I, for one, would not like seeing anything this massive posted to the net. Can you imagine the expense of shipping 1MB of data between all net sites and of storing that 1MB on every sites disk, even if the site is not interested (I expect that most sites will not be interested). I like the approach OK State uses for Kermit distribution. If you want to get the software, you call them up (paying for the call) and download the stuff. All that need be posted to the net is a directory of files and uucp logon information. -- Kenton Lee Bell Labs - WB ihnp4!wbscc!kfl or ihnp4!hoxna!kfl
vip@philabs.UUCP (V. I. P.) (03/28/85)
Since I am new to the GNU discussion. I, personally, would greatly appreciate it if someone could post a listing of all the software available from the GNU project. There is obviously some confusion as to the amount of software available and its degree of readiness for circulation. I think this is something that would be of interest to everyone. Brian Day UUCP: philabs!exquisit!{brian, root}
avolio@grendel.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (03/30/85)
> Here's another big YES for both the GNU project in general and the posting > of GNU EMACS in particular. Good for Richard. And here's a big "NO." A site wanting it can dial in and get it. There's no reason to move that much code onto every system on usenet. We are still seeing requests for postings for missed parts of hack, pathalias, rn, vc (vc is a good one... we didn't get a single part of that one), and so on. Can you imagine what it'll be like with a 20 - 30 part posting??? -- Fred Avolio {decvax,seismo}!grendel!avolio 301/731-4100 x4227
dms@mit-hermes.ARPA (David M Siegel) (03/31/85)
I cannot image why people would not want GNU Emacs. It is by far the best Emacs I have ever used; far better than one you could buy. It is amazingly easy to add features to it. For example, a few of us added a netnews reading mode to it (very similar to vnews) in one weekend. The mail reading program is very similar to Babyl, and probably one of the best you can get for a Unix system. All in all, it is hard to beat. -Dave -- Arpa: dms@mit-hermes.arpa Usenet: mit-eddie!mit-hermes!dms
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (04/01/85)
> I, for one, would not like seeing anything this massive posted to > the net. Can you imagine the expense of shipping 1MB of data > between all net sites and of storing that 1MB on every sites disk, It's not just 1 MB, it's a lot more. The version I got was 2.4 mb. After I got rid of the .o files it was 2.2 mb. After compressing (but you can't send that in mod.sources) it was .9 mb. -- Preverted word of the day: tribadism, to rub Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
sitze@rruxo.UUCP (R Sitze) (04/02/85)
Yes Yes Yes Yes!!
jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) (04/03/85)
In article <907@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >It's not just 1 MB, it's a lot more. The version I got was 2.4 mb. >After I got rid of the .o files it was 2.2 mb. After compressing >(but you can't send that in mod.sources) it was .9 mb. How about stripping all extraneous material (e.g., the .o files) out & posting it in 64K pieces, say 2 per week? -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull {decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,scdrdcf,ucbvax} 13817 Yukon Ave. trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull Hawthorne, CA 90250
bwm@ccice2.UUCP (Brad Miller) (04/09/85)
In article <2347@mit-hermes.ARPA> dms@mit-hermes.ARPA (David M Siegel) writes: >I cannot image why people would not want GNU Emacs. It is by far the >best Emacs I have ever used; far better than one you could buy.... >-Dave I have at least one complaint. It is HUGE. Sorry, but when my OS won't run it because it only supports 1 meg processes, I start to wonder. Also, I found several minor bugs trying to get it up on a BIGendian machine running 4.2. Now it runs, but a lot of commands don't work quite right -- example c-v scrolls to the next blank line, or one line if there isn't one on the next page. Obscure! Unfortunately, at the moment I don't have a symbolic debugger available, so finding the problem will have to wait until I port one. I can't really blame the author, since he only has one machine, but I think the technique used in unexec.c isn't very portable, since it requires a process can read it's own user block. Brad Miller -- ..[cbrma, ccivax, ccicpg, rayssd, ritcv, rlgvax, rochester]!ccice5!ccice2!bwm