NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/unix/sysv386/13658

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-26 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!psuvax1!vogon1!wa3wbu!frackit!dave
From: [e-mail] (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: FAS 2.10 async driver, part 5/5
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:05:15 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.
Lines: 71

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
> In article <8f0m=[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John De Armond) writes:
> >[e-mail] (Jerry Rocteur) writes:
> >>> # this is fas210.05 (part 5 of fas210)

> >>Who is the irresponsible bastard who posts large files in a non source
> >>newsgroup.
> >>What is the ruling regarding posting large files like this?

> >The ruling is you should shut that hole beneath your nose, unplug your
> >modem (or whatever) from your newsfeed, degauss your news partition
> >and get the hell off the net.

Oooooooh! Naaaasty :)

> On the other hand, some sites (including mine) have software that
> automatically scans source groups and archives their contents. Since
> the software doesn't have this group flagged as a sources group, it's
> going to miss the posting of FAS.

No it won't. FAS was cross-posted to alt.sources. You didn't check the
Newsgroups: line on the postings very closely.

> So posting sources here offers a double disadvantage. It frustrates
> those who explicitly do not want source postings, as well as those who
> would automatically process (in some manner) *all* source postings.

This posting, as has been mentioned before, was a welcomed acception to
the rule. Since it's already done there's nothing to be gained by
berating Uwe and doing so may only convince him to exclude this group
from future postings which will keep many people from seeing it at all.

> The issue is not at all one of the utility or value of FAS.

On the contrary, it's very much a part of the issue. If this was a
stoopid [tm] game then I'd be right in there bitching with you. Instead
it was a very valuable tool which MANY of us use. I agree with Uwe's
posting it. If he had posted it ONLY here that would be a different
matter. He thought enough to cover all bases by crossposting it to
source groups as well as c.u.sysv386.

> Posting a
> message here saying "I've just posted so-and-so to foo.sources, and it's
> available for anon ftp from whatever.site.com", is unquestionably a better
> route to go. It's the route Roe went with SAS. This method of releasing
> source doesn't inconvenience those who want sources, and it doesn't
> inconvenience those who don't.

Bet me.... I have no ftp. Lots of others don't either. This argument has
been around longer than dirt it seems. You probably have ftp. Please
don't assume everyone else does. We also don't all have immaculate
newsfeeds where everything comes through fine every day. For quite some
time we got no alt groups here at all.

> Was posting the sources here "irresponsible"? Not really.

Agreed.

> Was it bad netiquette and sub-optimal? Yes, but no worse than Jerry's
> and John's stooping to personal insults to make their points.

Half agreement. The insults are despicable and uncalled for. Uwe did not
show bad nettiquette. He showed enough concern that EVERYONE get a shot
at the new driver by giving it a decent ONE TIME distribution.

Personally, I thank Uwe from the bottom of my overworked heart. :)

--
 ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or-                       |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 frackit![e-mail] -or- [e-mail] -or-   |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
 vogon1!compnect!frackit![e-mail]            | Harrisburg,  Pa. |