Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site neuro1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!neuro1!sob From: sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.sources Subject: Re: As long as we are taliking about rmgrouping ... Message-ID: <649@neuro1.UUCP> Date: Sun, 3-Nov-85 16:44:07 EST Article-I.D.: neuro1.649 Posted: Sun Nov 3 16:44:07 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 09:41:53 EST References: <245@mit-eddie.UUCP> <647@neuro1.UUCP> Reply-To: sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber) Organization: Neurophysiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx Lines: 63 Xref: watmath net.news.group:4269 net.sources:3808 >In article <245@mit-eddie.UUCP> gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) writes: >>There is no *demonstrated need* for the posting of sources to the whole >>net. Many sites do not allow their users to play games, so there is no >>need for those hosts to have the sources to games on their machine. >>Furthermore, many sites don't even care to see that a new sendmail.cf >>has been posted (they don't run sendmail). In general, there isn't a >>need for all the sites to have all the software peole want to post. If >>someone wants software they should mail the authors for it. >>Subsequently, mod.sources can be used for the posting of *announcements* >>of available software. > >I disagree. The posting of sources via mod and/or net.sources is perhaps >the most useful information I get from usenet. Your arguments relating to >the content of those postings indeed point-up recent problems in net.sources, >but at least some of that can be handled in software (no followups to >net.sources, putting in a reminder that requests for sources should be posted >to net.wanted.sources, etc.). I am sure that not ALL sites want ALL software >that is posted, but I am sure that most sites want most of it. I think >distribution via mail would only clog the system more than sending it out >via net.sources. > >> >>A good example would be the posting of the news sources. The majority >>of sites are not running the latest version of news, and have no >>intentions of converting to the newest news when the newest news >>arrives. They need not be burdened with the news sources typing up >>their phone lines and occupying their disk space. When they want to >>upgrade, they can request the news sources by mail. >> > >I believe this is a good example for KEEPING net.sources. I believe that >most sites would upgrade given the choice. If the sources are not >sent out, there is no choice. I also belive that it helps to send it >out at once so that neighboring sites can cooperate to get the new version >up and running between their sites. > >> >>To sum up, net.sources.* should be rmgrouped. Mod.sources.* should >>remain, with stict controls on the content of the group by the >>moderator. Submitters should be *encouraged strongly* to post requests >>for or advertisements of software, and only in extreme cases of need >>should large sources be posted to the net. This goes for the posting of >>bugs and shareware as well. >>-- >>It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under. >> >>Greg Skinner (gregbo) >>{decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds >>gds@mit-eddie.mit.edu > >To sum up my point-of-view, net.sources should not be rmgrouped. 2.10.3 >should be released (and rn modified) to enforce no followups to net.sources >and a message should be displayed to the user asking that requests for repostings >should go to net.wanted.sources. > >My argument does not deal with sharware at all. I consider that a different issue. >The sources I refer to are those that have no conpensation to the author attached >to them (other than pats on the back). > -- Stan uucp:{ihnp4!shell,rice}!neuro1!sob Opinions expressed Olan ARPA:sob@rice.arpa here are ONLY mine & Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)660-9262 noone else's.