Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site amdcad.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!gatech!amdcad!jimb From: jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.sources Subject: Re: As long as we are taliking about rmgrouping ... Message-ID: <5771@amdcad.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 13:32:49 EST Article-I.D.: amdcad.5771 Posted: Mon Nov 4 13:32:49 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 21:25:24 EST References: <245@mit-eddie.UUCP> <136@vcvax1.UUCP> <687@ucsfcgl.UUCP> <5647@amdcad.UUCP> <476@brl-sem.ARPA> Reply-To: jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) Organization: AMD, Sunnyvale, California Lines: 67 Xref: linus net.news.group:3621 net.sources:3470 In article <476@brl-sem.ARPA> ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie) writes: >> >> The problem with mod.anything has always been that the moderator >> 'evaluates' the posting. His criteria will vary according to: >> >> 1) His beliefs. >> 2) How much time he has. >> >> What happened to 'the free interchange of ideas'. > >Free interchange of ideas? While I am generally opposed to moderated >discussion groups for these reasons, these arguemnts just do not hold >water for the sources groups. The source groups are by definition, not >discussion groups and a year or so ago we actually split off discussion > >-Ron Since when is someone's source code not ideas? I didn't say anything about discussion. Life would be much different here without less. Someone posted bgrep. A few days later someone posted bm, a better implementation of the same algorithm. Isn't that an interchange of ideas. Your restricted idea of what constitutes an idea demonstrates perfectly my point about the problem with moderated source groups. Even a game source has been useful to me in gleaning a subroutine or function useful to me in my work. I don't just take these sources and compile them, I find out how they work and I learn from the author's experience. I was surprised to see a well known software author come out against the sources groups the other day. I guess he doesn't remember that one of the things he is best known for is work on a 'shudder' game. Would he be as well known or respected today if his University had not allowed him to 'waste' his time on a game, or he had not been able to distribute it 'free' for no 'commercial' gain across the world America, and the world. He learned a lot developing that game, I learned a lot on how to use 'curses' from sources to that game, and I'm sure that it never would have happened if the contenplated restrictive policy had existed then. I have a much simpler answer to most of the problems. Eliminate the 'followup' capability from news software. I'm sure this could be done at backbone sites by some inteligent gleaning of headers, and perhaps some effort at local sites to remove the commands from the various news reading software. I know this won't guarantee anything, but given human nature, the extra work needed to exit the news software, edit a captured article, and post it will reduce traffic significantly. Another simple change would be to prevent postings to multiple groups. Why post six copies, choose the MOST appropriate group. If the author of an article feels it MUST be in more than one group, he can make the extra effort of posting it several times. Currently, the ease with which you can place multiple group names in a posting almost guarentees a lack of concern about where it actually should belong. -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200 Bogus newsgroup: net.news: Move to end of .newsrc[yn^L]? Don't be disctators, use thought.