Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!topaz!klinzhai!webber
From: webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber)
Newsgroups: news.stargate
Subject: Looking for archives of non-source groups!!!
Message-ID: <229@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 13-May-87 05:53:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: brandx.229
Posted: Wed May 13 05:53:47 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 16-May-87 01:20:59 EDT
References: <965@vortex.UUCP> <7946@utzoo.UUCP> <7947@utzoo.UUCP> <125@academ.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 50
Summary: oops, a typo

In article <125@academ.UUCP>, sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) writes:
> In article <192@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes:
> >
> >It is exactly the realization that we were loosing net.sources (according to
> >the note of the moderator of the new comp.sources.d) that made me feel
                             ^^ should have been `ON the new ...'
> >things had just gotten out of hand.
> 
> comp.sources.d is not moderated to my knowledge. comp.sources.unix and
> comp.sources.misc are. comp.sources.wanted is not. Please get the information
> right!

Sigh, more a matter of getting the typing right.  My mistake.  Even 
proof-reading my own copy, I tend to see what I meant instead of what I
actually typed. (Incidently, also apologies for typing `loosing'
instead of `losing', as was kindly pointed out to me in a mail message).

> [On code sent via mod.sources vs. net.sources]
> >I always figured it was a matter of choosing to share with people who
> >were capable of judging code for themselves versus sharing with people
> >who had to rely on a moderator.  Also, doubtless many people would be
> >puzzled as to what service the moderator was supplying that was worth
> >the inconvenience he so often causes.
> >
> 
> I don't know what kind of time you have to evaulate sources sent over
> the net. You must have much more than I do. I have megabytes of net.sources
> that are waiting for spare time to be evaulated. Generally, I try the
> mod.sources stuff first and most of the time (>90%) it works. I cannot
> say that about net.sources stuff.

It hardly matters that 90%+ of the mod.sources code works (although I doubt
that that is true considering how little `working code' I have seen
over the years).  More than 90% of the source that moves across the net
is useless or easily cons'd up should a need arise.  The few programs
that are actually worth storing are worth spending enough time with so
that they can be fixed/extended as things change.  The only programs
that don't need to be changed are those that don't need to be used.

> Also, you say nothing about the mod.sources archive services. I guess that
> is an unimportant service offered by the moderator.

It is certainly an important service.  However, it has nothing to do with
whether or not a group is moderated.  The net is in desparate need of
archivers.  Near as I can tell, the first hundred messages in news.stargate,
the discussion of its creation, and various other messages posted by
the people currently messing up stargate that explained their policies have
been lost to the net forever.

--------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!topaz!webber)