Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!dasys1!tneff
From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Source ARCs are inappropriate!
Summary: it's tempting to pretend Usenet is a BBS, but it's not.
Message-ID: <7194@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 25 Oct 88 15:36:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: dasys1.7194
References: <7119@dasys1.UUCP> <4457@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Organization: Independent Users Guild
Lines: 29

Several people have objected to my assertion that PC source collections
should be posted in shell-archive form to a comp.sources.* group rather
than bundled into ARC "binaries" and UUENCODED into the c.b.i.p.
newsgroup.  The primary objection seems to be that PC users either
don't have the tools to deal with shar's and wouldn't know where to get
them, or that it's too much like hard work to deal with things that way
when you could just take the ARC file directly.

Unfortunately this is tantamount to saying that since PC users only
know how to deal with BBS's, Usenet (specifically Netnews) should
accomodate them by behaving like a BBS.  But Netnews is not, and
*cannot be*, a BBS.  We have been all over the reasons for this in
the original c.b.i.p. debate. 

PC users have a responsibility to learn something about Usenet before
crowding into it.  If they don't, they will both damage the net and
reinforce the mainframe/mini crowd's nastiest prejudices.  Archive site
administrators, in particular, have zero excuse for not having the
tools to deal with the primary forms of Net distribution.  If you don't
have what you need, say so in news.* and people will get in touch with
you.

C.b.i.p. should carry only binary executables, fonts, control files and
such.  Source should be shar'd and posted to comp.sources.*.  That's
not what a BBS does, but this is not a BBS.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)