jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) (07/02/90)
The current setup of comp.sys.apple2 and comp.binaries.apple2 leaves no place for distribution of sources, hindering the distribution of source code. For instance, I have a number of programs that would be of benefit to Apple // users. The C programs include a simple desk calculator, convert tabs to/from spaces, a version of more, a regular expression pattern matcher and a fairly complete C compiler for the 6502. I also have a Lisp interpreter written in Applesoft and a version of the TECO editor for the 6502. But since there really is no appropriate place to post Apple // sources I haven't. comp.sources.misc is not the appropriate since the Apple // source postings are only of interest (and use) to the Apple // people. The regular newsgroup is full enough as it is; adding more traffic would only make the group more cluttered. Thus, I would like to propose a new group: comp.sources.apple2 to be used for the purpose of distributing Apple // related sources. This group would contain both sources and discussion of sources and will be moderated. I volunteer the time and the disk space has been ok'ed. This is just a call for discussion. Please, please, do not send me your votes yet. The discussion period is a minimum of 2 weeks followed by a voting period of 21 days. There will be a posting when the voting begins. Jonathan A. Chandross Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac
reeder@reed.bitnet (Doug Reeder,,,2343817) (07/03/90)
I have assumed that comp.binaries.apple2 was also the place to post sources. Traffic there is light enough that source code is not a burden. Properly written Subject: lines allow people to tell what is in a posting and what machines it runs on or language the code is written in. I suggest that comp.binaries.apple2 remain the place to post source code.
delaneyg@wnre.aecl.ca (Grant Delaney) (07/03/90)
The current comp.binaries.apple2 has and is the appropriate place to post source code. Remebering the difficulty the we incurred setting up the first archives for Apple software I feel that the current setup is quite efficient. Other than the few times a year (after christmas, exams and holidays) when the load is relatively high there is not is not an large volume of messages on this group. I have been acting as the link between comp.binaries.apple2 and apple2-l@brownvm.brown.edu for some time and have been able to handle this manually with no problem. Grant Delaney
ggray@wpi.wpi.edu (Gary P Gray) (07/03/90)
In article <Jun.30.22.54.49.1990.12254@paul.rutgers.edu> jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) writes: >Thus, I would like to propose a new group: > comp.sources.apple2 >to be used for the purpose of distributing Apple // related sources. >This group would contain both sources and discussion of sources and >will be moderated. I volunteer the time and the disk space has been >ok'ed. I will second this (after a bit of thought.) Having a dedicated newsgroup for apple // sources will hopefully stimulate programming in the // community. Even trivial code, if fully debugged and properly documented can speed program developement. With the introduction of a C compiler for 8bits, and with the number of languages already available for the GS, this could quite probably be a viable newsgroup. Also (from a purely nit-picky standpoint) might this be a group for disseminating new tech-notes? It is in a sense a "source" of information and they certainly aren't binaries. I can certainly scrape some assembly and possibly Zbasic sources to submit, such as macros for Merlin 8/16 to handle floating point operations, some mouse/clock/keyboard handler code I picked up and modified. And once I get the C compiler I will probably be happily churning out some stuff I've wanted to do on the Apple for a long time. -- -- WARNING!!! The above opinions may be HAZARDOUS or FATAL if swallowed!!! -- This post was in fact collaberation >> Gary Gray -- ggray@wpi.wpi.edu<< by the computer simulated personalities of Plato, Keith Moon, Mao Tse-tung, a Benedictine monk, and Ulysses S. Grant. It's all their fault.
jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) (07/04/90)
reeder@reed.bitnet (Doug Reeder,,,2343817) > I have assumed that comp.binaries.apple2 was also the place to post > sources. Traffic there is light enough that source code is not a burden. > Properly written Subject: lines allow people to tell what is in a posting > and what machines it runs on or language the code is written in. I suggest > that comp.binaries.apple2 remain the place to post source code. delaneyg@wnre.aecl.ca (Grant Delaney) > The current comp.binaries.apple2 has and is the appropriate place to post > source code. Not every site gets the binary hierarchies because of the sheer size of the groups. Because a binary has to be uuencoded, or the equivalent, you've just doubled the size. The sources hierarchy, however, is widely available. Secondly, the charter for the comp.binaries.apple2 newsgroup is "binaries", *not* sources. The charter for all of binaries is just that -- binaries. A binaries group is just not the appropriate place to post source. People don't know to look there for sources, and you don't expect to find sources there. Sources are not binaries. The binaries group is also not an appropriate place for any discussion of sources. I'm sure you've seen the "this group is for binaries, not for discussion of binaries." You can't have it both ways. Furthermore, there is enough trouble getting people who post binaries to include a decent subject line, let alone enough documentation to explain just what it is that they've posted. A moderated sources group goes a long ways towards improving documentation and providing a decent description. Jonathan A. Chandross Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac
cc@xroads.UUCP (Dan McGuirk) (07/04/90)
In article <Jun.30.22.54.49.1990.12254@paul.rutgers.edu> jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Johnathon A. Chandross) writes: > The current setup of comp.sys.apple2 and comp.binaries.apple2 leaves > no place for distribution of sources, hindering the distribution of > source code. [...] > Thus, I would like to propose a new group: > comp.sources.apple2 > to be used for the purpose of distributing Apple // related sources. I agree that having only a comp.binaries.apple2 group hinders the distribution of sources, and also that comp.sources.misc is inappropriate for the posting of Apple II source code. I'm in favor of anything which will promote more distribution and discussion of sources for the Apple II.. Currently there seems to be few or no sources released for Apple II programs. I think a comp.sources.apple2 could change that, and be a benefit to many apple II users on the net.. I'll definitely vote yes on the creation of this newsgroup.. -- \ / C r o s s r o a d s C o m m u n i c a t i o n s /\ (602) 941-2005 300|1200 Baud 24 hrs/day / \ hplabs!hp-sdd!crash!xroads!cc
lwv27@cas.BITNET (07/04/90)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Keywords: new newsgroup for Apple // sources Refverences: <Jul.3.16.27.09.1990.15717@paul.rutgers.edu> <Jun.30.22.54.49.1990. Distribution: na > Not every site gets the binary hierarchies because of the sheer size of the > groups. Because a binary has to be uuencoded, or the equivalent, you've According to the July 2nd Usenet reader summary list, 88% of all usenet sites receive the binaries group. That is one of the larger (but certainly not largest) propagations. Interestingly enough, only 1.2% of the total readership is estimated to actually read the group. The comp.sys.apple2 group does a little better. 91% of the sites get that, and 2.5% of the total readership reads it. Note that only 3% of the sites which get the sys group do not get the apple2 group. Sounds to be that a source group is not really going to reach that many more people. > Secondly, the charter for the comp.binaries.apple2 newsgroup is "binaries", > *not* sources. The charter for all of binaries is just that -- binaries. > A binaries group is just not the appropriate place to post source. People > don't know to look there for sources, and you don't expect to find sources > there. Sources are not binaries. I have never really understood this argument. It is like saying "This is a mexican restraunt so no one would ever know to look around and see if steaks are served here." Obviously if we post sources there folks will know that is where sources are. NO ONE uses the group name as an archive. The archives are maintained separately. And that is where folks go to look for sources, etc. I cannot think of a place better suited for sources than with the binaries they are associated with. And, if the poster so chooses NOT to post binaries with their sources, the odds are they are going to post the sources in a SHK in binscii format - and that will result in a binary file. If we are talking about plain sources, then there is a group whose 'charter' (there, I can use that term as well) is to be the clearing point for all non-unix sources. > The binaries group is also not an appropriate place for any discussion of > sources. I'm sure you've seen the "this group is for binaries, not for > discussion of binaries." You can't have it both ways. I agree - but the sources group is ALSO not an appropriate place for any discussions as to what the source, is, where to get a copy, etc. ALL discussions belong in cop.sys.apple2. You can't have it both ways. > Furthermore, there is enough trouble getting people who post binaries to > include a decent subject line, let alone enough documentation to explain > just what it is that they've posted. A moderated sources group goes a long > ways towards improving documentation and providing a decent description. Unless you expect the moderator to write doc , etc. then having a source group will only improve the subject line . And personally, I am against most moderated groups. Look for instance at the moderated source groups already present. comp.sources.unix - there is so sporatic of postings there that one almost NEVER sees new entries. And it is not because of lack of postings - the moderator at one time listed about 50-100 postings that he was behind on. Or perhaps look at comp.sources.mac - what, you say you have never seen anything there? My site, which has been on the net now for quite a few (5? 7?) has received a total of 72 postings to that group! Certainly nothing to sneeze at. There are a few well run moderated groups - comp.sources.misc (where I believe our source should go) keeps a pretty steady stream of sources flowing. Comp.sources.x - while there have been 3-4 moderators in the last year of that group, other than that, it has not been too bad. Comp.sources.games, where my site sees sporatic and voluminous postings (37 parts, etc. - that is probably why things are so sporatic, since it takes a LOT of work by a moderator to get a large posting divided into the 60 k shars and out onto the net). Most of the rest of the groups are unmoderatored or low/no volume. And there is one VERY interesting group - comp.os.minix - which posts ITS sources - and I mean a LOT of unix-alike sources - to the discussion group. While there are a few complaints as time goes by, most folks like getting the sources so quickly. > Jonathan A. Chandross > Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu > UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac -- Larry W. Virden Business: UUCP: osu-cis!chemabs!lwv27 INET: lwv27%cas.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.Edu Personal: 674 Falls Place, Reynoldsburg,OH 43068-1614 Proline: lvirden@pro-tcc.cts.com America Online: lvirden CIS: [75046,606]
jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) (07/05/90)
jac: > Secondly, the charter for the comp.binaries.apple2 newsgroup is "binaries", > *not* sources. The charter for all of binaries is just that -- binaries. > A binaries group is just not the appropriate place to post source. People > don't know to look there for sources, and you don't expect to find sources > there. Sources are not binaries. lwv27@cas.BITNET (Larry W. Virden) > I have never really understood this argument. It is like saying "This is > a mexican restraunt so no one would ever know to look around and see > if steaks are served here." I do not read the comp.binaries.* groups in the hopes that some useful source will be posted there. I don't EXPECT to find source there so I don't LOOK for it there. If it appears there I WILL NOT SEE IT. You also ignore the fact that inappropriate use of a newsgroup can cause you grief from the net.gods. Why not avoid the problem entirely by using an appropriate group? Repeat after me: Binaries != Sources. > I agree - but the sources group is ALSO not an appropriate place for any > discussions as to what the source, is, where to get a copy, etc. ALL > discussions belong in cop.sys.apple2. You can't have it both ways. In the old, dark days, when USENET just started there was "net.sources". All discussion went there -- sources, source requests, patches, and general discussion about sources. Because volume was small, this was fine. Later, the volume grew and the group was broken up into sources and discussion of sources. However, in the beginning everything worked just fine. > Unless you expect the moderator to write doc , etc. then having a source > group will only improve the subject line . Not so. If the moderator gets a posting with nothing to indicate what it is, a message can be sent back to the author saying "how about a paragraph describing what this is." Nothing will be posted without at least a small description of what the posting is. You shouldn't have to run a program to tell what it does, and a moderator can ensure that you won't have to. > And personally, I am against most moderated groups. > Look for instance at the moderated source groups already present. > comp.sources.unix - there is so sporatic of postings there that one > almost NEVER sees new entries. And it is not because of lack of > postings - the moderator at one time listed about 50-100 postings > that he was behind on. [Similar stories about comp.sources.mac, comp.sources.games, and comp.sources.x] This is a legitimate concern. However, I don't think that an Apple sources group will suffer from the same problem. All the groups you cited have enormous volume of sources. Having to check out each distribution for a 1/2 megabyte appliation and repackage it in small chunks suitable for the news system is no mean feat. This accounts for the delay. The moderators do a good job considering the demands of the job. I expect that most of the Apple // sources will be smaller than 60k and will thus easily fit in a single posting. Backlog is only a problem if you have a lot of source to post. I, for one, would not complain if there was such great interest that I got ten source postings a day. > And there is one VERY interesting group - comp.os.minix - which posts ITS > sources - and I mean a LOT of unix-alike sources - to the discussion group. > While there are a few complaints as time goes by, most folks like getting > the sources so quickly. And you have to wade through totally unrelated discussions like "does MINIX run on a Wong & Co. clone?". Maybe you have the motivation to look through all that chaff hoping to find wheat, but I sure don't. Jonathan A. Chandross Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac
rck@george.CES.CWRU.Edu (Robert Knauerhase) (07/07/90)
In article <Jun.30.22.54.49.1990.12254@paul.rutgers.edu> jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) writes: >The current setup of comp.sys.apple2 and comp.binaries.apple2 leaves >no place for distribution of sources, hindering the distribution of >source code. For instance, I have a number of programs that would >be of benefit to Apple // users. [snip, snip] >Thus, I would like to propose a new group: > comp.sources.apple2 >to be used for the purpose of distributing Apple // related sources. >This group would contain both sources and discussion of sources and >will be moderated. I volunteer the time and the disk space has been >ok'ed. I would first like to echo the comments of someone who's message I've scrolled past: that a comp.sources.apple2 group would certainly aid in the distribution of Apple II sources (hence the name, right? :) and that this is a Good Thing and should be enacted immediately. I would vote yes and encourage others to do so as well. My only reservation would be that if we go through with a vote, we would want a good chance of the vote's passing. Recent history has shown that apple-related groups can indeed fail the 100-yes-votes criterion, which both vetoes the group and casts a bad light on the Apple II UseNET community. Additionally, does anyone know what overhead there is in adding a group? As in, does the existance of comp.sources.apple2 with sporadic postings really add much over just posting them to comp.binaries.apple2? I, for one, would like the separation. Ideally, the existance of a sources group would spark a greater level of source postings (the Good Thing from above :). If support isn't there, has anyone considered a maillist or mail exploder that people could subscribe to? Rob +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Robert C. Knauerhase [new alumnus] | | rck@ces.cwru.edu,knauer@cwru.bitnet | Case Western Reserve University | | knauer@earth.lerc.nasa.gov | NASA Lewis Research Center | +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | "Computers are different from telephones. Computers do not ring." | | -- A. Tanenbaum, "Computer Networks", p. 32 | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) (07/07/90)
rck@george.CES.CWRU.Edu (Robert Knauerhase) > Recent history has shown that apple-related groups > can indeed fail the 100-yes-votes criterion, which both vetoes the group > and casts a bad light on the Apple II UseNET community. I seriously doubt if anybody remembers the comp.sys.apple2.tech vote or suddenly decided that the Apple II USENET community is a bunch of bozos. > Additionally, does anyone know what overhead there is in adding a group? Relatively little. A newgroup message goes out and the group gets created. Some sites have their software configured such that newgroup and rmgroup messages have to be dealt with manually. Jonathan A. Chandross Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac
barry@rbdc (Barry Newberry) (07/07/90)
I am all for the comp.sources.apple2. I think it should function BOTH
as a place for source code and discussion of source code (programming
technique).
With respect to posting to binaries newsgroup, no binaries are received
at my site, because the admin has to pay for the long distance calls. And
if he gets the apple binaries, he'll get the binaries for Mac, IBM, Amiga,
etc. in fairness to the other users. Binscii'd 800K disks are big, and
believe me, some have been sent over binaries.
For new programmers. I started Apple II Assembly back in 1981. I was self-
taught using various manuals; it took a year to develop a good understanding
of the processor flags and operations. Now, I've taken college classes in
data structures and programming. I was surprised at the number of things
that I had done the "hard way." Having a separate newsgroup for sources and
discussion of sources would be a great help to those who are learning to
program the Apple II's. We're not on the ANSI standards (for the most part),
and this would be the place to find out about compiler bugs and Apple II
programming in general. It seems to me that much of the newsgroup discussion
is taken to Email. For example, Doug Gwyn sent the C header for the SCC 8530
(IIgs) to me; without this source it would have been impossible for me do
my serial port related programming (Assembly). I could have used BASIC or
Pascal hooks, but polling is not the way to run a serial port. I could be
overlooking some very important information, but this is the sort of stuff
(discussion) that I would expect on sources.
I don't expect the newsgroup to be a replacement for college level courses
in computer programming, but it should make Apple programming easier and
more enjoyable.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, until there is a cure for Assembly Language Brain Fry,
there will always be the N.C. Home for Deranged Programmers.
.......................................................................mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com (System Administrator) (07/07/90)
In-Reply-To: message from lwv27@cas.BITNET In regard to Larry Virden's comments on the readership survey, I doubt most of the Proline sites carrying comp.sys.apple2 get the survey, let alone respond. And that's a lot of people reading and responding to this newsgroup. I'd like to see the source files posted to their own group, if only to lower the bandwidth on the binaries. I'm not a C or Pascal programmer and could care less about the source code or libraries, etc. By removing sources from binaries and putting them in their own group, I won't tie my system up receiving them. As it is, the only way I can carry binaries is through a local tie in to the newsfeeds that took several months and a lot of cooperation from the sysop to establish. Prior to that, I had to get them via long distance phone; and some times the transfer time would be over an hour per connection! Many times what was received was garbage and had been previously posted or obtained via other methods. I digress, but I guess that leads towards the suggestion that comp.binaries.apple2 become a moderated group so "we" can control what is posted. (standing by for flames!) ______________________________________________________________________________ Mike Ungerman |Proline:mikeu@pro-magic Pro-Magic BBS: 407-366-0156 |uucp:crash!pnet01!pro-magic!mikeu 300/1200/2400/9600 Baud 24hrs |arpa:crash!pnet01!pro-magic!mikeu@nosc.mil Apple Tree of Central Florida, Inc |Internet:mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com Orlando, Florida|Voice:407-366-0060|Compuserve:71326,31 Prodigy: JSNP58A
cwilson@NISC.SRI.COM (Chan Wilson) (07/07/90)
In article <Jul.4.21.11.54.1990.24360@paul.rutgers.edu> jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) writes: >jac: >> Secondly, the charter for the comp.binaries.apple2 newsgroup is "binaries", >> *not* sources. The charter for all of binaries is just that -- binaries. >> A binaries group is just not the appropriate place to post source. People >> don't know to look there for sources, and you don't expect to find sources >> there. Sources are not binaries. > >lwv27@cas.BITNET (Larry W. Virden) >> I have never really understood this argument. It is like saying "This is >> a mexican restraunt so no one would ever know to look around and see >> if steaks are served here." > >I do not read the comp.binaries.* groups in the hopes that some useful >source will be posted there. I don't EXPECT to find source there so I >don't LOOK for it there. If it appears there I WILL NOT SEE IT. > >You also ignore the fact that inappropriate use of a newsgroup can cause >you grief from the net.gods. Why not avoid the problem entirely by using >an appropriate group? net.gods? Usenet is a fairly good anarchy, IMHO. The only people that are going to complain are the users. i.e, people reading those newsfroups. Jonathan, no offense, but I think you're being a little obtuse when you're saying that you won't read the binaries group for sources just because it's "comp.binaries.apple2". Oftentimes source is included in the archive; I've placed at least half a dozen postings in the archive at wuarchive that were this way. Source has been rare to cross the binaries group simply due to the nature of programming on the //s. Until recently, there was no "real language" out there to program in. Most 'serious' programming was done in assembly. There weren't any <stdio.h> or <stdlib.h> to include -- most were home-brewed, and used as such. This means in order to give a person the source to the program you're working on, you have to make sure to include all the external stuff you call. This adds up... >In the old, dark days, when USENET just started there was "net.sources". >All discussion went there -- sources, source requests, patches, and >general discussion about sources. Because volume was small, this was >fine. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is the primary reason I disapprove of a comp.sources.apple2 group. The flow of articles on comp.binaries.apple2 is a bit less than one articles per day. Source postings won't get lost in the flow. There isn't enough flow. I would like to see a bit more descriptive posting names. I mean, really: /usr/spool/news % grep Subject * 942:Subject: mcm bbs, part 2 of 3 943:Subject: mcm bbs, part 3 of 3 944:Subject: MCM bbs, part 1 of 3 945:Subject: mcm bbs, docs 946:Subject: This file is from APPLE2-L 90-01665 U1 947:Subject: This file is from APPLE2-L 90-01664 U1 948:Subject: This file is from APPLE2-L 90-01663 U1 949:Subject: This file is from APPLE2-L 90-01662 U1 950:Subject: Re: MCM bbs, part 1 of 3 951:Subject: Re: MCM bbs, part 1 of 3 952:Subject: This file is from APPLE2-L 90-01667 X1 953:Subject: This file is from APPLE2-L 90-01666 X1 954:Subject: This file is from APPLE2-L 90-01668 X1 955:Subject: Shareware version of Barney Stone's DBMaster version 5.0 7/8 956:Subject: This file is from APPLE2-L 90-01669 Z1 957:Subject: reposting 958:Subject: This file is from APPLE2-L 90-01674 U1 959:Subject: This file is from APPLE2-L 90-01673 U1 960:Subject: This file is from APPLE2-L 90-01671 U1 961:Subject: This file is from APPLE2-L 90-01672 U1 962:Subject: File Manager 1.1 963:Subject: File Manager 1.1, part 2 of 2 I'm aware that the files from apple2-l are a repost, and that there is a second subject line buried in it, but try to tell that to a shell script. I'd be in favor of making comp.binaries.apple2 a moderated group, if only to make it easier to archive things. (As it currently sits, I have to make up a filename for each post. Moderating the group could guarantee a valid filename.) Just my $.02... --Chan ................ Chan Wilson -- cwilson@nisc.sri.com <!> I don't speak for SRI. Janitor/Architect of comp.binaries.apple2 archive on wuarchive.wustl.edu "a2fx it!" ................
jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) (07/08/90)
cwilson@NISC.SRI.COM (Chan Wilson) > net.gods? Usenet is a fairly good anarchy, IMHO. The only people that > are going to complain are the users. i.e, people reading those newsfroups. Not necessarily. Any backbone site admin who doesn't like sources going out a binary group can purge them quite easily. Your connectivity can also be adversely affected if your feeding admin doesn't like postings which violate a groups charter. Historically, this has not happened often, but it is not unknown. > Source has been rare to cross the binaries group simply due to the nature > of programming on the //s. Until recently, there was no "real language" > out there to program in. Most 'serious' programming was done in assembly. Sorry, I have to disagree. Many people wrote a lot of Pascal code. I have books which have listings for font editors, turtle-graphics, etc all written in Pascal. Byte often had source for Apple Pascal programs (in the old days before Helmers sold out and Byte turned into an IBM rag.) When Aztec C came out many people posted programs specifically designed for Aztec C to net.sources, circa 1983. I know because I saw them and still have many of them. Same thing for Forth. And the source to many assembly programs was distributed in the SAME WAY. All I have done is to propose a formal distribution channel to make life easier. jac >In the old, dark days, when USENET just started there was "net.sources". >All discussion went there -- sources, source requests, patches, and >general discussion about sources. Because volume was small, this was >fine. cwilson@NISC.SRI.COM (Chan Wilson) > This is the primary reason I disapprove of a comp.sources.apple2 group. > The flow of articles on comp.binaries.apple2 is a bit less than one > articles per day. Source postings won't get lost in the flow. There > isn't enough flow. You are taking my comment out of context. This is not strictly fair. I was responding to a statement that "discussion of sources does not belong with the source", not that source would get lost amid the binaries. To respond to your point, sources and discussion WILL get lost in comp.sys.apple2 because of the volume. The fact that comp.binaries.apple2 has rather low traffic is irrelevant because: SOURCES ARE NOT BINARIES Therefore, they do not belong in the a binary group. What is wrong with: comp.sys.apple2 discussions of Apple II material comp.binaries.apple2 binaries for Apple II programs comp.sources.apple2 sources for Apple II programs It seems so logical to break it up this way. What am I missing? Is someone going to beat you up if there is a new group? I just don't understand why you insist that sources are binaries. It makes no sense at all. Jonathan A. Chandross Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac
cwilson@NISC.SRI.COM (Chan Wilson) (07/08/90)
In article <Jul.7.21.17.03.1990.27097@paul.rutgers.edu> jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) writes: [uhm.. various items. read the article, eh?] >What is wrong with: > comp.sys.apple2 discussions of Apple II material > comp.binaries.apple2 binaries for Apple II programs > comp.sources.apple2 sources for Apple II programs Nuthin. I haven't any problem with it. I was sorta playing the devil's advocate... the only point I was really making was the low volume on the binaries group easily allows for sources to be posted there. Seems to be a fair amount of interest. Shall someone propose a call for votes, or shall we haggle over this some more? >:) >Jonathan A. Chandross >Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu --Chan ................ Chan Wilson -- cwilson@nisc.sri.com <!> I don't speak for SRI. Janitor/Architect of comp.binaries.apple2 archive on wuarchive.wustl.edu "a2fx it!" ................