Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!sob From: sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Announcement of unmoderated sources mailing list. Message-ID: <139@academ.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Jun-87 02:42:28 EDT Article-I.D.: academ.139 Posted: Mon Jun 8 02:42:28 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jun-87 01:37:27 EDT References: <965@vortex.UUCP> <7946@utzoo.UUCP> <7947@utzoo.UUCP> <134@academ.UUCP> <248@brandx.rutgers.edu> Reply-To: sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) Organization: ACADEM Computer Systems, Houston, Tx Lines: 77 Keywords: unmoderated news In article <248@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >[postnews wouldn't permit cross posting between comp.sources.d and news.group] > >In article <134@academ.UUCP>, sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) writes: >> In article <243@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >> >...Moderating a sources group just heightens the illusion that it is >> >`safe' to run programs that one doesn't understand. >> So, are you are saying that the "first pass" work that the moderator does >> to be sure that the code has documentation and a makefile is a waste of >> his and our time? This is the main reason I LIKE the moderator arrangement... > >This is as sensible as having news.groups moderated to catch spelling errors. >If the code doesn't have enough documentation to be useful to you, then >there is no reason for you to save it. Not every posting on the net >was created expressly for your particular situation. Hello? You mean you like all the extra work of creating your own makefile and manual page AND doing the first pass yourself? Fine. You obviously have loads of spare time on your hands. Must be nice. By the way, your analogy makes no sense. Lots of people make speeling errors (see!), but you can still understand the jist of it. Some programs are not so easily parsed. Perhaps you are adept at reading someone else's code, but then again you may have to look at alot of student labs and have developed that talent. I have not. Documentation helps me. Also, I don't believe every posting on the net was made to suit my situation. I never implied this. To think otherwise it a grossly inaccurate interpretation of my previous postings. I have hear that Texans are hard to understand, but I thought we still write in the same language. >If someone wants to moderate sources, that is fine; create a group called >comp.sources.mod and run it, but I strongly object to having moderated >sources be the only option on the net. I do not object to an un-moderated list. I think that is a wonderful ideal. (I spelled it that way on purpose.) Unfortunately, past experience indicates that an un-moderated sources list contains many, MANY non-sources postings. A moderated list does not. If the unmoderated sources group can be JUST sources, I will support it 110%! >> >> You seem to be describing the UNIX-SOURCES Internet List. What would your >> list do that UNIX-SOURCES does not? > >According to the information posted in news.lists, unix-sources@brl.arpa >is the same thing as comp.sources.misc which is indeed a moderated group. Well, actually the correct list is the so-called "List of Lists" maintained by the NIC at SRI (ftp the files netinfo:interest-groups* from sri-nic.arpa). It still sez that it gateways net.sources. I guess they need to update this to whatever it really gateways. >There is no notion that the unmoderated group would carry >better sources, except to the extent that you would expect that a >programmer that understood the foolishness of restricting sources to >a moderated forum would probably be capable of analyzing other >problems correctly also. (Incidently, I see no reason to segregate discussions >of sources from listings of sources, such a separation dehumanizes C code.) > Hmm. Well, there seems to be a few people that disagree with the discussion aspect. I am one, but we seem to disagree on may issues surrounding this. I think it might be a tad bit egotistical to say that other programmers that don't agree with you about moderated sources vs. unmoderated sources are incapable of analyzing other problems. I also find it interesting that discussion in the sources group somehow "humanizes" C-code. I'd like to hear more on that :-). > > >----------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis!webber) -- Stan uucp:{killer,rice,hoptoad}!academ!sob Opinions expressed here Olan domain:sob@rice.edu are ONLY mine & Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)790-9004 noone else's.