🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <482@ssbell.UUCP>, kent@ssbell.UUCP (Kent Landfield) writes:
> In <3eCX02wo28gL01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> paf@uts.amdahl.com
> # Perhaps some sort of "kit" with the commonly requested programs could
> # be send out once every few months? 1 megabyte or so a year would probably be
> # sufficient. My canidates would be news, patch, uudecode/encode, arc (or
> # equivilant), binhex, shar. In short the programs necessary to access and
> # extract news programs/articles.
> 
> In article <246@nlgvax.UUCP> hans@nlgvax.UUCP (Hans Zuidam) writes:
> # Some sort of "kit" would be *really* usefull. It would allow a new site
> # to be up and running with the correct software in no time. However, posting
> # such a kit every x months would be a gross waste of bandwidth assuming that
> # most sites are running the correct software.
<deleted>
> I totally agree. A kit does need to be created. The kit list could be a
> list of all the software that should be distributed to each new site on
> the net. The new site would receive the kit list and the associated software
> from the site that it was connecting to. My objection is to having the 
> software designated on the kit list transmitted through everyone's sites.

When I look back on how much easier it would have been for me had such a "kit"
existed when I first got into this, I really wonder why this seemingly obvious
notion (ain't it always so?) didn't get implemented ages ago. Wasn't it Holmes
who commented that it is the obvious that is most-difficult to see? :-)
                             ^^^^^^^
Is it possible that some of the wizards could re-implement the code in such a
way that it could be basically set up for a specific system using a Larry
Wall-type Configure that would handle all local variables for virtually any
os? This might mean that some integration of the packages might be needed in
order to gain uniformity of variable-names and (if applicable) common header
files, but it would sure make life alot easier for people who weren't cs
majors and may not yet understand all the minor challenges of setting things
up to match their local requirements.

I can attest that if the people who hosted me into usenet had not offered
(a sometime embarrassing amount of) help and patience in the early days, 
there is no way we'd have gotten up and running. ("Makefile? What's a Make-
file?"). Maybe it's time to take pride in the rapidity with which a new
site can be brought up, rather than the amount of pain and suffering they must 
endure in order to first gain admittance to the club :-) This only makes sense,
of course, if one believes that it is ok to allow ordinary clods like myself
to use the net. Opinion remains understandably divided on this question :-) 

Rather than having a net-wide posting every "x" months, it might be possible
to set up a list of sites willing to archive the source in major geographical
locations, with only *those* sites receiving patch updates as-needed to keep
the code up to date. Perhaps a "request-kit" shell-script *could* be posted
periodically so that in order to place an "order" for the entire kit, a host
for a new site could simply run the script, which would then prompt for
responses to resolve how to get the kit delivered to the new site from the
most-proximate archive site. Keep it as easy as possible for *everyone*.
Large transmissions would then need occur only on an as-needed basis, but
with certainty that the most-current patch level is being shipped.

In any case, hooray for a great idea!
 
                                 Bud Hovell

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
: UUCP:  {sun!nosun  |  tektronix!{percival|bucket}  |  attmail}!whizz!bbh :
: TELEX: 152258436 (Whizz/Bud Hovell)               VOICE: +1 503-636-3000 :
: USPO:  McCormick & Hovell, Inc., PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, OR  USA 97035 :
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
                       "May the source be with you!"