🚀 go-pugleaf

I think >>net<<.sources.mac is sufficient.  The people who run the Info-Mac
list (actually at Stanford, not uw-beaver---we just gateway it for them)
have expressed a willingness in the past to mail the sources to Usenet.  We
just haven't had the mechanism set up to do it that easily (I think they
were going to mail them to fa.info-mac---I don't know if that is really
happening).  They also archive sources at Sumex which is on the Arpanet so
it's probably not necessary to worry about that too much either.

					--Rick

> It is beginning to look like we ought to split the macintosh stuff out of 
> net.sources. the best place for it seems to be mod.sources.mac

I see no reason to have a moderated Mac group, and will continue
to post to net.sources.

-- 

Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO  80307

Instead of net.sources.mac (or even mod.sources.mac), I would like to
re-propose net.sources.micro for sources to micro software of all types,
including those specific to the MacIntosh. This idea was brought up some
time ago, but rejected at the time because there wasn't enough
micro-specific software being posted then to justify the new group. I feel
that the situation has changed and a newsgroup devoted to micro software
would be warranted.

					Tony Hansen
					pegasus!hansen

I'd agree with Rick... since the sources are being archived at Sumex, it
seems to be repetious to be archiving them elsewhere.  However, a seperate
newsgroups seems to be a good idea... I like the idea of the moderated group
(to keep from having repition), but it seems the moderated system hasn't
caught on very well yet (at least mod.sources seems pretty lean).

					Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
					John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
UUCP:
 {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \
    {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty
ARPA:
	fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA

> I think >>net<<.sources.mac is sufficient....

Three points:

[1]	Someone will complain that "net.sources is archived automatically
	by many sites and they might not want net.sources.mac!"  This
	merely makes those sites' task somewhat less trivial but it is
	simply a software problem.  Not an issue.

[2]	mod.sources.mac is a good idea but if mod.sources is an example,
	the turnaround on this is slow and not many people seem to
	use it to post sources.  Would Mac users be any different?

[3]	What are you going to do when you start getting the
	"Does anyone have a copy of MacWidgit?" articles in
	net.sources.mac?  Will there be a net.wanted.sources.mac,
	too?

Things to think about.
-- 
Gordon A. Moffett		...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam

"Everything you know is wrong"

> Instead of net.sources.mac (or even mod.sources.mac), I would like to
> re-propose net.sources.micro for sources to micro software of all types,

I like it!

-- 

Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO  80307

 
>> I think >>net<<.sources.mac is sufficient....

I don't. explanations later.

>Three points:
>
>[1]	Someone will complain that "net.sources is archived automatically
Most sites are (should) also be archiving mod.sources, so it is really a
non-issue regardless of the name.

>[2]	mod.sources.mac is a good idea but if mod.sources is an example,
>	the turnaround on this is slow and not many people seem to
>	use it to post sources.  Would Mac users be any different?

I can't speak on the turnaround of mod.sources because I don't watch that.
If there is a 24 or 48 hour delay, what is the big deal? Realistically
sources posted to mod.sources would get to ALL of the net faster because
the distribution tends to be wider (for mod.singles anything posted goes to
ihnp4, seismo, gatech, hplabs, fortune, and a number of other sites so it
gets spread very widely much quicker than it would with a normal posting).
Part of the reason mod.all isn't showing a lot of volume is simply that it
isn't being pushed while we work out some technical details (this is called
shaking out the bugs before we force ourselves to rely on it). From what I
have seen most of them are fixed at this point, although I'm probably going
to do another sendsys one of these days to see (ack).

I think there are some significant advantages to mod.sources.mac. One is
the moderator. If this person runs it right it can make life better for
everyone-- you have one person who's responsibility it is to make sure that
all those myriad requests for macput and macget are handled, someone you
KNOW is keeping an archive-- this means you don't have to, since you can
always get it later if you change your mind. Someone who keeps duplications
from happening (how many variations of SHAR did we see in net.sources
recently? 15? 20?) Someone who can help new users figure out how to deal
with the software, try to minimize the naive questions so that
mod.sources.mac and net.micro.mac can be maximally useful for all users,
rather than spending a lot of time rehashing old problems...

Some of this can also be done with net.source.mac, true, but if you don't
have someone who has been given the responsibility of doing them (and has
accepted it by becoming moderator) a lot of it falls through the cracks,
and you are back to listening to 35 versions of shar, 15 xlisps, and 25
postings of macput in response to a single request. Not terribly useful,
but it does wonders to the net volume and your long distance phone bill.

>[3]	What are you going to do when you start getting the
>	"Does anyone have a copy of MacWidgit?" articles in
>	net.sources.mac?  Will there be a net.wanted.sources.mac,
>	too?

net.wanted.mac might not be a bad idea-- perhaps we might even want to
consider (due to its popularity) net.mac, net.mac.wanted, etc... who knows?

chuq
-- 
From the ministry of silly talks:		Chuq Von Rospach
{allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui  nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA

Deadbone erotica is the prickly panic of forgotten milleniums, it is the moldy 
billion year madness that creeps deep along the spinal behind of my mind.

> > I think >>net<<.sources.mac is sufficient....
> 
> Three points:
...
> 
> [3]	What are you going to do when you start getting the
> 	"Does anyone have a copy of MacWidgit?" articles in
> 	net.sources.mac?  Will there be a net.wanted.sources.mac,
> 	too?
> 
> Things to think about.
> -- 
> Gordon A. Moffett		...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
> 

I never received MacWidget.  Could you send me a copy?  Is it a game, or
a DA or what?  :-)
-- 

E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems

No one would dare claim these opinions.

In article <1984@pegasus.UUCP> hansen@pegasus.UUCP (Tony L. Hansen) writes:
>Instead of net.sources.mac (or even mod.sources.mac), I would like to
>re-propose net.sources.micro for sources to micro software of all types,
>including those specific to the MacIntosh. 

PLEASE---NO!!   Mac generates a distinct (and exciting) community of interest 
and should not be submerged in general micro sources.

Bob Langridge				(UUCP: [...]!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!rl)
Computer Graphics Laboratory		(ARPA: rl@ucbvax  
926 Medical Sciences			          or
University of California		       langridge@sumex-aim)
San Francisco
CA  94143

> From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam)
> Date: 4 Jan 85 09:03:52 GMT
> 
> [1]	Someone will complain that "net.sources is archived automatically
> 	by many sites and they might not want net.sources.mac!"

I've heard this so many times I'm almost beginning to believe it is true.
My sys file currently says:

SOURCES:net.sources,!net.sources.all::/usr/lib/news/sfar net.sources
SOURCES:net.sources.bugs::/usr/lib/news/sfar net.sources.bugs

Voila...'net.sources.bugs' articles don't get into my 'net.sources'
archive.  Am I missing something on this issue, or is the answer as
easy as this?


> [3]	What are you going to do when you start getting the
> 	"Does anyone have a copy of MacWidgit?" articles in
> 	net.sources.mac?  Will there be a net.wanted.sources.mac,
> 	too?

In chuq's original message he suggested that one of the moderater's
responsibilities should be to compile an index.  An index would also be
a good idea for net.sources, *especially* if the index contained the
Message-ID's of the extraneous discussion articles in a format so that I
can automatically zap them from my archive.  If anybody is interested,
I suppose I could volunteer to make such an index.

-- 

Chip Rosenthal, Intel/Santa Clara
{cbosgd,idi,intelca,icalqa,kremvax,qubix,ucscc} ! {t4test,t12tst} ! {chip,news}

In article <> moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) writes:
>I'd agree with Rick... since the sources are being archived at Sumex, it
>seems to be repetious to be archiving them elsewhere.

How do we poor folks out here in uucp land access Sumex.  If there is a
standard way for this to be done, could this be posted periodically in
net.announce or somewhere like that.  ( The place where the how to use
Usenet and Usenet style keep showing up).

Otherwise the great archive in ARPA land isn't a lot of use.
-- 
 Jim Budler
 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
 (408) 982-6547
 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!jimb
 Compuserve:	72415,1200
 The Source:	STW265