Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!haven.umd.edu!umd5!cogsci!wjb
From: wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent
Subject: Re: Is posting srcs/bins OK here?
Message-ID: <22.Apr.91.174055.49@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 91 21:40:54 GMT
References: <1655@richsun.cpg.trs.reuter.com> <9104201711.45@rmkhome.UUCP> <1991Apr22.060838.28918@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Organization: JHU Cognitive Science Center, Baltimore, MD
Lines: 29

Rens Troost writes:
>I've been watching the discussion flail along for a while, and I'm of the
>opinion that this hunger for a c.o.coh tree is a little premature.
>...
>I'll throw my two cents in-
>1> sources are useful.
>2> too many subgroups make archivers lives hard.
>3> the bandwidth on this group is not high enough to choke any mailer.
>4> you don't waste an inode on another directory :).
	
	Now, for an alternative point of view.  I think that having separate
discussion and source groups makes it easier to archive the "important"
stuff.  It requires less work for archivers who actually care about the
quality of their archives as opposed to the number of megabytes and makes
it easier for users of the archives to actually find things.  That is why
I'm supporting the current proposal to split comp.os.minix.  I suspect that
Rens and I are on the opposite sides of that discussion in comp.os.minix as
well.

>IFF sources become a problem on this group, then decide to fork another
>group. But I'd sure be happy to see some sources come this way...especially
>if they're easily portable to MINIX. :)

	Do it the right way now.  Don't wait till later and have to deal
with the lethargy of the net and confusing your readers.  Also, if your
programs are portable to Minix and you have a separate source newsgroup,
I'll only have to read that one.  :-)

				Bill Bogstad