Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!ljdickey From: ljdickey@water.UUCP Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: new moderated newsgroup(s) for Atari ST software distrbution Message-ID: <796@water.UUCP> Date: Fri, 20-Feb-87 20:00:31 EST Article-I.D.: water.796 Posted: Fri Feb 20 20:00:31 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Feb-87 04:52:34 EST References: <882@imagen.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 38 Keywords: newsgroup,atari,st Xref: utgpu news.groups:399 comp.sys.atari.st:1602 > Should the group be named comp.sources.atari.st or > comp.atari.st.sources ? One reason to choose "comp.atari.st.sources": People interested in atari.st have fewer places to have to look, closer to home, so to speak. > Should there be a seperate group for binary postings without > an accompaning source posting ? > (This is not a trivial problem: on one side there are the > arguments that blindly executing binary ONLY postings > can be dangerous to your system, also the purpose of the net > is to spread knowledge, what knowledge is gained from a binary > posting? On the other hand there are many authors who wish to > keep control over their sources for many good reasons (e.g. > ease of updates) Right now, the number of items that are discussion far exceed the number of items that are either binary or source. I suggest that one group be created for the time being -- for both. Then, if that group gets too big, it can be split, into "sources" and "binary". > If we decide to have a binaries group, in what form do we > distribute the binaries ? I suggest that we allow the users to decide. The proliferation of variations of UUDECODE attests to the weaknesses of the original. Eventually the dust will settle on this one. > Should we have a moderated ask-atari group ? Sure. Good idea. -- Prof. L. J. Dickey, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo. ljdickey@water.UUCP ljdickey%water@waterloo.CSNET ljdickey%water%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA ljdickey@water.BITNET