Xref: utzoo comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:325 comp.sys.ibm.pc:15984
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!im4u!ut-sally!nather
From: nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Source code newsgroup for MS-DOS
Message-ID: <11817@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: 27 May 88 16:39:12 GMT
References: <1555@bu-tyng.bu.edu> <3186@bsu-cs.UUCP> <11803@ut-sally.UUCP> <7978@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 31

In article <7978@brl-smoke.ARPA>, w8sdz@brl-smoke.ARPA (Keith B. Petersen ) writes:
> I don't agree that another newsgroup is needed for sources.  There is no
> need to post clear text when we can package related files in ARCs and
> reduce the chance of getting errors (because of the built-in CRC
> checking used in ARC programs).
> 
> Many of the programs already distributed as ARCs contain full source
> code.  [...]

Right now, there is *no* group to which an author can post MS-DOS sources,
whether packaged with executables or not, where other PC users can find
them -- other than comp.sources.misc, which is just as inappropriate for
executables.  Result: they get posted in comp.sys.ibm.pc or other news
groups that are not normally archived.

I agree the best solution is to post ARCed files that have source
and executables (*and* clear text documentation) included.  Maybe the name
of the group is ill-chosen.  Perhaps comp.binaries.ibm.pc could evolve
into a more appropriately named group.  One suggestion made was 
"comp.code.msdos", thus obviously including sources and binaries -- docs
would have to be "understood."  And non-IBM users of MS-DOS would be
covered as well.

Names are funny -- they can make a lot more difference than one might suspect.
If my parents had named me "Flash," as I suggested to them, I might have been
a hero instead of a hacker ...

-- 
Ed Nather
Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
{allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather
nather@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU