Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!paul.rutgers.edu!jac From: jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.sources.apple2 Message-ID: Date: 5 Jul 90 01:11:54 GMT References: <9007041250.AA04085@apple.com> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 79 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