Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!sob From: sob@academ.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,news.groups Subject: Re: Announcement of unmoderated sources mailing list. Message-ID: <145@academ.UUCP> Date: Sat, 13-Jun-87 05:31:00 EDT Article-I.D.: academ.145 Posted: Sat Jun 13 05:31:00 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jun-87 01:04:28 EDT References: <965@vortex.UUCP> <7946@utzoo.UUCP> <7947@utzoo.UUCP> <139@academ.UUCP> <256@brandx.rutgers.edu> Reply-To: sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) Followup-To: news.groups Organization: ACADEM Computer Systems, Houston, Tx Lines: 79 Keywords: unmoderated news Xref: utgpu comp.sources.d:781 news.groups:921 In article <256@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >In article <142@academ.UUCP>, sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) writes: >> 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%! > >Why do you care what appears on the list? Perhaps you are obsessed with >the word sources. I do think that a group named "comp.sources" should contain source code for computers...I guess that is obsessive. Pity me. :-) As for the mailing list, people other than myself have commented that doing mass mailings of large source files is a bigger waste of resources than a "sources" newsgroup full of non-source postings. Since they have already explained the rational for this, I will not bother to repeat it. >It seems to me that an unmoderated group contains whatever >people choose to post to it. If people who post stuff that is inappropriate >are ignored on the list and responded to by mail, the stuff goes away. History does not bear this out with respect to "net.sources". The stuff (non-source) postings did not go away. >By far, most of the non-source on the old list was replies. Refusing >to allow people to reply to a sources message would easily clean this up. >(and it would certainly be more useful than not letting people crosspost >to comp.sources.d because it is a sources group). This strikes me a bug on the news software... This is fixable. I suppose you have already dropped a line to rick@seismo.css.gov about this bug. If not, you should. >> 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). >Somehow I think that news.lists is more relevant to Usenet people. On >what basis would you say the other is more `correct'? UNIX-SOURCES is an INTERNET list, not a news group. The authoratative list for INTERNET lists is the LIST of LIST. With more usage of NNTP, the structure of this may change. (see other articles for some of the current problems) >> 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 >Well, anyone that posts on Usenet after reading the cost information >is not exactly non-egotistical. The philosophy of a programmer is >often reflected in the strategies chosen for implementing various tasks. >Of course, the philosophy will have little to do with the skill with which >the strategy is implemented, but it may have something to do with how you >perceive the usefulness of what was done. I find this ego<->"programming philosophy" link interesting. I agree that some programmers have aspects of ego in the "philosophy". My personal feeling is that the better programmers are those that don't let ego get in the way of producing better code which may be derived from collaboration with others. To that end, I think sources groups are great. Or, perhaps we should have a "developmental" sources group. This was my personal ideal of what net.sources should have been. Someone posts sources and requests people to look at them and feed back [by mail, or in a sources discussion group]. This is quite a different function from comp.sources.unix which [in my opinion] is for mature sources. >> discussion in the sources group somehow "humanizes" C-code. I'd like to >> hear more on that :-). > >I guess the smile means you really wouldn't. Not true. I just thought the anthropromorphic reference was humorous. >----- (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!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.