Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!ucbvax!cas.BITNET!lwv27 From: lwv27@cas.BITNET Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.sources.apple2 Message-ID: <9007041250.AA04085@apple.com> Date: 4 Jul 90 12:46:00 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 86 Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Keywords: new newsgroup for Apple // sources Refverences: 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]