Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!peregrine!elroy!spl1!laidbak!att!pacbell!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Source ARCs are inappropriate!
Message-ID: <8805@spl1.UUCP>
Date: 1 Nov 88 15:47:40 GMT
References: <7119@dasys1.UUCP> <4457@bsu-cs.UUCP> <7194@dasys1.UUCP> <1314@mtunb.ATT.COM>
Sender: news@spl1.UUCP
Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Organization: Independent Users Guild
Lines: 45

In article <NELSON.88Oct26134617@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
>... Tom Neff is going to write these programs, because he is the one who is
>kvetching about the current situation.  If Tom refuses to write them,
>then he abrogates his right to complain.

Well, at least we've learned how one earns the right to complain on
Usenet:  agree to code Russ Nelson's solution to every problem.  :-)

In fact, if people posted source to a comp.sources.msdos group (I
agree it's a shame none exists, but I am afraid to propose it formally
because I don't have the time to moderate it), and binaries to c.b.i.p.,
things would get better not worse.  Let me cover a few points.

 * Yes, some shar variants give MSDOS-based unshar programs headaches.
   HOWEVER please keep in mind that these are *moderated* newsgroups.
   It ought to be perfectly straightforward for the moderator to (a)
   settle on one or two "approved" unshar'ers for use with the material
   distributed, (b) vet each incoming submission against the approved
   unshar to make sure it likes it, and either (c) reject or (d) re-shar
   submissions that cause trouble.

 * Yes, some packages are floating around out there on BBS's, CompuServe
   etcetera that prohibit anyone from breaking up the ARC or otherwise
   touching the pristine inner contents in any way.  

		WE CAN LIVE WITHOUT THESE PACKAGES

	      because (that's right, you guessed it)

			USENET IS NOT A BBS!

   We cannot possibly carry everything BBS's carry, and we shouldn't try.
   If something is going to consume Usenet resources for the benefit of
   PC-owning Usenet members, it can damn well conform to Usenet convention.

 * Missed sections and repost requests are a fact of life, especially
   in groups like c.b.i.p. whose connectivity sucks because of the high
   volume-to-interest ratio.  The way you minimize the heartache from
   missed sections is to POST SMALL STUFF!!  Not to point the finger at
   anyone in particular, but 17-part games or demos are not the way to
   fly.  Rahul has been doing a wonderful job at handling this, by the
   way -- I just wanted to make the point.  The ideal c.b.i.p.  posting
   is a 10k utility everyone with a PC ought to have.

Here endeth the polemic.  :-)