Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!att!alberta!ubc-cs!van-bc!lpami
From: lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Filtering the source/binaries without bottleneck
Message-ID: <2113@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jan 89 18:13:45 GMT
Sender: lpami@van-bc.UUCP
Lines: 62

In <3054@haven.umd.edu>, louie@trantor.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes:
> I don't think that Bob Page should have to test sumissions ... [more deleted]

  I agree. 

> I don't care what you do with the binaries.  Personally, I don't run any
> binaries on my system from USENET or other non-commercial source.  You
> don't know *where* they've been.  With sources, at least I can examine
> them for any suspicious code.

  I will run binaries (or at least some), but I realize that by doing so, the
rsponsibility is mine, at least to the degree that I should take reasonable
precautions with it. I do not expect the moderator to do my job for me. I do
expect anyone who has taken on the job of moderator to do pretty much as Bob
has been doing, and appreciate the time and effort required to do it.

> I would hate to increase the burden on the moderator.  It enough that he
> packages things up and keeps archives; I don't expect him to test code for
> me.  What do you want for free, anyway?

  There is a another consideration here as well. Having Bob check out every
package, or even having a team check them out, is still no guarantee of a fully
'safe' program. There are just too many variables to test for to make sure that
a program doesn't inadvertently trash something on a particular hardware
combination running a particular set of programs. There is also no way of
knowing that a program does not contain deliberate nastiness, as it might be in
there biding its time until run #x, or a certain date.

  In the latter case, if Bob were testing all submissions, and one got through
that turned out to be damaging a month down the road, what would the
net.reaction be? Ask yourself if  you would like to be in the position of
having tested and approved The Binary That Ate The Amiga Community. Perhaps it
is better that we each test in our own environment, leaving no doubt as to
where the responsibility lies, and absolving the already hard working moderator
of the additional responsibility, implied, if not explicit.

  As a sysop on Comuserve's Amiga forums, I download and test submissions
constantly. Some I test more thoroughly than others, since often I do not have
the apporpriate hardware or software to perform a proper test. This has made me
very aware that should something propogate that is less than friendly, I have
helped to propogate it, and worse, have helped to propogate it with at least an
implied seal of approval. Consequently, some binaries that are approved for
public data libraries are tested well, while others are tested for copyright
and the fact that they will un(ARC|Zoo) properly, and not much more.

  Of course CIS is not Usenet, and there are a lot of differences in the
perception of the two services, so it stands to reason that there might be a
difference in perception toward the binaries available on each. Perhaps we need
something in the 'monthly newcomers package' (if that ever gets going),
detailing what sort of testing is and isn't done, and outlining the end users
responsibilities in this area.

-larry

--
Frisbeetarianism: The belief that when you die, your soul goes up on
                  the roof and gets stuck.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|   //   Larry Phillips                                                |
| \X/    lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca or uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips  |
|        COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322                                        |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+