Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!yale!Ram-Ashwin
From: Ram-Ashwin@cs.yale.edu (Ashwin Ram)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Bad placing of Atari ST binaries
Message-ID: <23834@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Date: 24 Feb 88 05:16:24 GMT
References: <386@csvax.liv.ac.uk> <347@coma.UUCP>
Sender: root@yale.UUCP
Reply-To: Ram-Ashwin@cs.yale.edu (Ashwin Ram)
Organization: Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 22
In-reply-to: axel@coma.UUCP (Axel Mahler)


In article <347@coma.UUCP>, axel@coma (Axel Mahler) writes:
>                               I see three possible solutions to the
> current dilemma:
> 
> 	1. Find someone reliable with enough time and suitable resources, 
> 	   and make that person the new moderator of comp.{src,bin}.st.
> 	2. Make both newsgroups unmoderated or,
> 	3. rm-group both groups and return to the way programs have been
> 	   distributed before - through comp.sys.atari.st.
> 
> Currently breaking its way is 'solution' no. 3. I hate the idea.
> I'd be very much in favor of no. 1, but - in case nobody volunteers -
> would prefer no. 2 over what's going on now.
> 
> I'd like to hear about other ideas, or how you folks out there feel
> about the current situation, and my suggestions.

I vote for 2.  3 is bad because you have to wade your way through too much stuff
just to find programs; also, there is no separation of sources and binaries.  1
is bad because it doesn't work.  Why burden one guy with so much work?  Why rely
on one guy's time (and machine) to get PD programs through to everyone?

2 is great.  I can just picture all that code coming through... No more bottlenecks.