Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!h.cc.purdue.edu!s.cc.purdue.edu!ain
From: ain@s.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Regarding alt.sources.amiga.
Keywords: comp.sources.amiga.tech
Message-ID: <3343@s.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 5 Jul 88 16:41:41 GMT
References: <2220@sugar.UUCP>
Reply-To: ain@s.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White)
Organization: PUCC Land, USA
Lines: 63

[sorry all.. Peter insists that this be done in public view by being much more
 reasonable in mail, but still attacking us in public.  I've tried to keep
 this in mail, but I finally got fed up with getting one attitude in mail,
 and then seeing a completely different one on the net]

In article <2220@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>OK.  First of all, we are not trying to replace comp.sources.amiga. We're
>
>We aren't competition with comp.sources.amiga... we're a complementary
>service.  Think of us as "comp.sources.amiga.tech".
>
>Rather than increasing the waste of net bandwidth, this should decrease
>it, by moving techie sources into a more appropriate forum.
>
>If the comp.*.amiga moderators follow through with their threat and refuse
>to accept anything posted to alt.sources.amiga for inclusion in
>comp.sources.amiga, well, that will certainly hurt the chances of
>alt.sources.amiga's succeeding as an alternate source for code.

   Quite to the contrary Peter.. by not duplicating postings, we break even
on net bandwidth (posting things twice would be an *increase* in bandwidth),
and we prevent any temptation from using alt.sources as a parallel to
comp.sources.amiga -- this way, the two groups will be different and will
thus be able to serve different groups.

>We are not so narrow-minded as to claim that this is their primary aim. We
>suspect they're upset at what they believe is a personal attack.

   Of course we are upset -- it does seem like a personal attack.. however, our
primary aim is *not* to kill the group, but rather to prevent it from becoming
a parallel group (you do say you want it to be different.. we are trying to
help in the only way we have available).
   From the dual nature of your posting, it seems you are not too sure what
you want your group to become -- you say you don't want it to be like
comp.sources.. but when we try to oblige and try to prevent it from
becoming so, you get upset because it *can't* be like comp.sources.
   If you think we are trying to tromp on you Peter (we really are not), make
us eat our words by making your group succeed.  Complaining on the net is only
going to get a lot of people pissed at all of us and make this group look bad!

>  Rather than being an attack, this should be seen as an affirmation of
>their efforts.

   Personally speaking (ie. not for Rob or Brent), I don't see the alt.sources
group as an attack -- rather I see your presentation of it as one.  I feel you
may be right about the group being necessary -- and if so, it may succeed
(depends on you Peter).
   However, I *am* opposed to a parallel group forming as I don't really see
the need for it (except to get sources out faster.. but in the long run, having
one group or two dosen't really make a bit of difference).. however, I do see a
*possible* need for a group that provides an entirely different service.
   My suggestion Peter, is that you archive alt.sources at sugar, and make it
into this developer's group you talk about.  Let the people send you code
fragments and individual functions (things *we* can't allow because we don't
have time to write programs to test that kind of stuff).  If your group proves
to be valuable and has useful stuff, I'll be one of the people supporting you..
but *only* if it provides something useful.


-- Pat White   (co-moderator comp.sources/binaries.amiga)
ARPA/UUCP: j.cc.purdue.edu!ain  BITNET: PATWHITE@PURCCVM  PHONE: (317) 743-8421
U.S.  Mail:  320 Brown St. apt. 406,    West Lafayette, IN 47906
[How do you get to heaven?   Go to Pluto and hang a left.]