TILE FORTH RELEASE

[Ken Smith]

In article <15023 at bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff at bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes:
>also since it's UNREASONABLE to expect Usenet FORTH enthusiasts to be
>subscribed to comp.lang.forth (right?) we'll crosspost it to alt.sources!

I'm a fairly typical system administrator for a fairly typical university.
I don't read comp.lang.forth because beyond knowing that it's a programming
language I haven't got the foggiest idea what it is.  However I stashed
the forth they posted and will be installing it because it showed up in
a newsgroup that I do read and I know there are people here who would find it
useful.  We system administrators LIKE having things like the Tile Forth
Release posted here so we don't have to read every single newsgroup to get
things  that our users might find useful.  If you're flaming anything here
it should be a flame for posting the release to comp.lang.forth instead of
posting a brief message saying that "The Tile Forth Release has been posted
to alt.sources."

>[followed by a mountain of source]

Heaven forbid we should have source code in alt.sources!

>OK Ed Vielmetti I take it all back.  There IS something worse than
>re-posting 30k source postings from other groups.... :-(

Re-posting whole articles may be a waste, but properly cross-posting
requires changing a couple fields in an inode and one extra
directory entry for the link.  If your news reading software has any
intelligence at all you won't even see it twice should you happen to read
both newsgroups it got posted to.  I don't see what you're so upset about.

I'm normally pretty silent in these flame wars but don't want your
message to stop others from posting their code here where I'll see it
as opposed to comp.lang.forth where I (and I am willing to bet...) lots
of other typical system administrators will miss something useful.

						Ken Smith

internet: kensmith at cs.buffalo.edu	bitnet:	kensmith at sunybcs.BITNET
uucp:	  ..!{boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!kensmith