Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:6017 alt.sources.d:1080 news.admin:11279 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,alt.sources.d,news.admin Subject: Re: Rich $alz is still alive ??!!!??!! Message-ID: <16084@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Date: 30 Nov 90 05:47:16 GMT References: <15169@cs.utexas.edu> <21867@well.sf.ca.us> Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Followup-To: comp.sources.d Lines: 19 In article dnb@meshugge.media.mit.edu (David N. Blank) writes: >> It will go to alt.sources, since that is currently the only reliable >> channel for general-purpose sources. > >You bet, any code that is submitted gets posted. No one checks for >code with security holes, code that doesn't compile, non-standard >idioms (makefiles & etc), missing files, non-standard shar formats, >portability, & etc. True, that's a risk; but one that a motivated user can tackle himself by editing, compiling, and testing. The power is in all our hands. This is not true with a recalcitrant moderator, who holds the source somewhere we can't get at it. It's a tradeoff. YOU may be scared when a new editor or game comes down the unmoderated pipe, but I'M not. And that's fine; freedom of choice is what the net's all about. An approved, 'safe,' 'debugged' moderated channel is a wonderful idea, but when throughput dries up without adequate explanation or response from the moderator, it's little wonder confidence erodes and people start gravitating to less 'secure' but more available channels.