Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!cunyvm!ndsuvm1.bitnet!nu070156
From: NU070156@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Glen Overby)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Minix source group badly needed.
Message-ID: <392NU070156@NDSUVM1>
Date: Fri, 23-Oct-87 00:51:36 EST
Article-I.D.: NDSUVM1.392NU070156
Posted: Fri Oct 23 00:51:36 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Oct-87 17:51:01 EST
References: 598@louie.udel.EDU
Organization: North Dakota Statue University, Fargo.
Lines: 57

In article <598@louie.udel.EDU>, BECKER%HUMBER.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
 (Bruce Becker) says:
>I agree - I keep 2 minix sections already: one is discussion, the other is
>code/fixes/etc... It would be useful to have separate gruops as well,
     
   I maintain an archive of Minix sources on Bitnet, and have found
that it is very difficult to separate the real "signal" from "noise".
I feel that a moderated Minix sources group would benefit all of us.
A moderated group would give a better organisation to the programs
that we all put time into creating and debugging;  in the current
situation we simply throw our functions to the wind and hope that it
propagates around the network.  This failed when a somebody from
Waterloo posted their ed, sed and awk clones and they were eaten by
the great Line Eater, or some such beast.  Many of us (myself
included) would never have found out about these programs, nor
obtained them, if those people had not also sent them to Dr.
Tannenbaum.  In that respect, Dr. Tannenbaum has been acting as a
moderator.
     
   If we had a moderated sources group, all of the postings should be
serialised, like is currently done on Comp.unix.sources, et.  al.  so
that those of us on the recieving end could easily keep track of what
we have gotten or not gotten.  Those sending source to the moderater
would certainly be watching for their postings to come back across the
network, so if they were to get lost in the mail to the moderator,
they would most certainly ask what happened to them.  So we get an
increase in reliability of distribution.
     
   I also hope that the moderator would be able to take the time to do
basic testing and possible repackaging, like Rich Salz does on the
Unix sources goups.  We have had many postings which were poorly done,
making them difficult or impossible to use.  It may also motivate
people to do a better job on packaging their work.
     
   A moderated group does not necessarily mean the demise of
Comp.os.minix;  this group will still be useful for questions about
bugs, enhancements/ new versions and PDP 11/55 nostalga :-).
     
   If one looks around at the archive sites for Usenet, it is
immediately obvious that the moderated groups are the main ones
archived;  the others, if they get that treatment at all, are simply a
collection of the dialogue for a given ammount of time.  On Bitnet,
our listservers do this automatically.  I feel that archives are
important for preserving work we do with Minix, and as an aid to help
newcommers get up to speed.  Then, hopefully, we won't have to be
blasted with requests for some program that has already been posted
many many times.  I have tried to fill this latter gap with the
preserves on NDSUVM1.  Unfortunately, Bitnet has not proved to be
cooperative with those attempting to access the server from other
networks, but that's Bitnet's fault.
     
   I definatly feel that we should petition the Backbone for a Minix
sources group.  It is for our own good.
     
Glen Overby
Bitnet: nu070156@ndsuvm1
UUCP: uunet!ndsuvax!ncoverby