As long as we are taliking about rmgrouping ...

[Stan Barber]

>In article <245 at mit-eddie.UUCP> gds at 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 at 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 at rice.arpa		       here are ONLY mine &
Barber		CIS:71565,623   BBS:(713)660-9262      noone else's.