Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.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: 8 Jul 90 01:17:03 GMT References: <9007041250.AA04085@apple.com> <18445@fs2.NISC.SRI.COM> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 59 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