Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!phigate!ehviea!leo
From: leo@ehviea.ine.philips.nl (Leo de Wit)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: The reasons for my position on demos
Message-ID: <530@ehviea.ine.philips.nl>
Date: 7 Apr 90 11:46:57 GMT
References: <35429@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> <1515@lzsc.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: leo@ehviea.UUCP (Leo de Wit)
Organization: Philips I&E Eindhoven
Lines: 52

In article <1515@lzsc.ATT.COM> hcj@lzsc.ATT.COM (HC Johnson) writes:
|In article <35429@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM>, koreth@panarthea.ebay.sun.com (Steven Grimm) writes:
|> There have been many comments here recently about my policy on demos on
|> comp.binaries.atari.st.  I'd like to take this opportunity to explain my
|> position, so everyone will at least know where I'm coming from.
|> 
|Perhaps the question here is the line between Moderation and Censoring.
|
|I had thought that Moderated Binaries served to supply:
|1. flow control -- send only so much per day.
|2. eliminate duplication.
|
|Now Censoring as been added.  But is it a valid function of the Moderator?
|
|P.S.
|I never distribute thru atari.binaries for just this reason.  I don't
|need a self appointed Censor picking through code looking for 
|an Offensive line.

Howard, it might not have occurred to you, but I think atari.binaries
was not created for the sake of software developers, but for the sake
of the users of that software.

1) It gives me a safe feeling to know that someone else (someone I can
trust) has taken a look at the code, or the program (whatever applies),
before I'm going to use it. Though certainly not foolproof, it makes
life harder for 'virus spreaders'.

2) Having a moderator guarantees there is a uniform interface for those
wanting to download stuff: the hardware it runs on is mentioned, or the
compiler that will compile it (whatever applies). Also the de-/encoding
methods will be better standardized.

3) Even developers should benefit from a moderator, given the free gamma-
test and possible suggestions for improvement before releasing it to the
public. Remember, the net is not for free; having a moderator may well
save some traffic.

4) Having a moderator guarantees that certain rules are being obeyed.
For instance, source code should be documented.  Yes, that makes life
harder for developers (at first). And yes, it makes life easier for
those wanting to use it. The rule that Usenet should not be used for
commercial purposes, should be obeyed by everyone using it; that is, it
should go without saying. That is, if you're not obeying it, your
system administrator (or a backbone S.A.) is entitled to cancel your
article (the general consensus however seems to be not to cancel but
transmit, resulting in some hot flames for the offender; this usually
helps). I have no problem whatsoever with refusing commercials.

My $0.04 -

    Leo.