Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen
From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: v10i256: ls, great ls for DOS or OS/2 (part 01/02)
Keywords: ls, OS/2
Message-ID: <3515@sixhub.UUCP>
Date: 27 Mar 91 00:49:06 GMT
References: <3432@sixhub.UUCP> <1991Mar19.212356.18971@cbnewsh.att.com> <3486@sixhub.UUCP> <1991Mar25.191951.3590@cbnewsh.att.com>
Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY
Lines: 30

In article <1991Mar25.191951.3590@cbnewsh.att.com> twb@cbnewsh.att.com (thomas.w.beattie) writes:

| Do you get a lot of submissions with no description of what they do?

  Yes, roughly 60%, although I've been beating on people for info
lately.

| No docs at all?

  That's getting better, too, since I starting rejecting stuff for that
reason. I still get it, you just don't ever see it.
| 
| I thought the review process included evaluating the performance and utility
| of the submission.  Since when are authors the best source of "a useful and
| truthful description of the program."

I still run a check on the program, I just don't write the anymore if
the submitter gives me a reasonable description of the program. Note
that I posted it in spite of the fact I decided we didn't need more
UNIX-like utilities. You can consider that a one sentence endorsement of
what the author said.

Many of the author or submitter reviews have either an intro or snide
comments inserted throughout. And if I agree with the info I let it go
as is. You think I should spend more time than I do already?
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me