Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!art100
From: ART100@psuvm.psu.edu (Andy Tefft)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Vote NO on comp.sources.apple2
Message-ID: <90198.110412ART100@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 17 Jul 90 15:04:12 GMT
References: <5669071@ub.cc.umich.edu>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 25

I've been following this discussion with considerable disinterest,
but I do think comp.sources.apple2 is a good idea. Nobody's going
to miss any sources posted in comp.binaries.apple2 unless they
put 'source' in their kill file or something. I think c.b.a2 is
a wonderful place for sources to go.

On the other hand, creation of a separate source group will encourage
source code posting, and hopefully posters will also still post binaries
in comp.binaries at the same time. There is not that much source code
posted in comp.binaries as it is, so people who don't get the
source group aren't going to miss anything!

Some people will find it difficult to receive the group, sure, but
they're not going to miss anything they don't already have. Archives
will be difficult, sure, since probably none of the existing sites will
want to take on sources and having an additional site isn't the greatest
for the users. But it's quite possible that some of the major comp.sources.*
archivers (uunet) will be able to archive c.s.apple2 as well.

I think the only real advantage of a comp.sources.apple2 will be
to encourage source code posting (basic, c, pascal, assembler),
but what an advantage that is!  Renaming comp.binaries.apple2
to something like comp.programs.apple2 would probably have the same
effect, but that wouldn't cause any less of a stir, and with a separate
group at least people and sites can choose to ignore the sources.