Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!sunybcs!boulder!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!meccts!pwcs!dennisg From: dennisg@pwcs.StPaul.GOV (Dennis Grittner) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Demo Design Message-ID: <3517@pwcs.StPaul.GOV> Date: Wed, 14-Oct-87 17:29:35 EDT Article-I.D.: pwcs.3517 Posted: Wed Oct 14 17:29:35 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 16-Oct-87 22:28:34 EDT References: <1034@cooper.UUCP> <2531@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <1147@runx.ips.oz> Reply-To: dennisg@pwcs.StPaul.GOV (Dennis Grittner) Followup-To: comp.sys.mac Organization: City of St. Paul Public Works Lines: 51 In article <1147@runx.ips.oz> clubmac@runx.OZ (Macintosh Users Group - Sydney, Australia) writes: >In article <2531@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> saunders@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (kevin eric saunders) writes: >>>[Demo Version of Design v2.0 - part 5 of 10] >> What the **** is this incredibly long binary doing in comp.sys.mac? >>Binaries should be submitted to the moderator of comp.binaries.mac. >What is WORSE is the proliferation of postings that are more than 3 parts, >as well as the use of comp.binaries.mac as a cheap way of distributing demo >versions of software, updates to commercial software, and Apple Technotes. >1.....talk about design demo posting on more than one place and the usefulness of such a posting in general. The Design demo posting should have ( at least ) been posted in only ONE place.. > >2) I personally appreciate the postings of updates to Lightspeed C & Pascal, > but I wonder just how many subscribers to comp.binaries.mac use them; I think this posting(s) was great and quite useful to a number of us. > >3) There is an EXCELLENT source of Apple Technical Notes called APDA (or > AAPDA in Australia). For the last few months, I have received the Technotes > I think that Technical NOtes are still appropriate in a comp newsgroup - not everyone has access to the other sources... 4) Postings such as NetHack are too big (and expensive) as a single posting > I'm not fond of posting things like nethack in general. Hard to justify the costs - especially if I were in Australia. >Wouldn't most readers of comp.sys.mac prefer to see more of the SMALLER >and more useful postings (as described in the INFO-MAC digests) rather >than these HUGE postings, which are specialist? I like access to both - however I would hope that folk would avoid postings that cause some of the problems that you have mentioned. Certainly the 386 vs 020 chip wars with HUGE cross-postings and the PC versus Amiga vs Atari vs Mac postings were pretty much a HUGE volume waste of time. Personally I think anything that is cross-posted extensively is VERY suspect - since the follow-up volume will probably be much greater than it should be for the same subject posted to it's proper group(s). In general I agree with you, but I don't want to be quite as restrictive as I think you do. I am quite fond of comp.sys.mac and read it very regularly. I consider it valuable EXCEPT when the signal-to-noise get's too high. Enough said ( probably TOO much ). -- Dennis Grittner City of Saint Paul, Minnesota (612) 298-4402 Room 700, 25 W. 4th St. 55102 "Let's just put Ollie, Ronnie, and the rest in jail!"