REPOST lharc102A Part 01/04 BSD Unix to Amiga archives

[Kent Paul Dolan]

xanthian at zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:

> Perfectly simple: alt.sources is for _sources_; that says something
> about contents, not about format. Over the years, and with experience,
> most folks [learn some minimal competence in unwrapping archives...]
> The insistance by some folks on clear text transmission of sources
> seems mostly to be an unwillingness to learn how to deal with
> available tools, whatever the stated motives may be.

darcy at druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:

> *FLAME FUCKING ON*

> Kent, I believe you have crossed the line with that statement. Argue
> if you will the advantages of one or another method of posting but
> please don't suggest that those who disagree with you are lying, lazy
> or stupid unless you have some proof. I, and most people I know who
> prefer clear text source posting (CTSP), have no trouble using all the
> tools you suggest. We argue for CTSP for exactly the reasons that we
> state. If you have proof that the case is otherwise then please
> present it.

Sounds like a personal problem to me, D'Arcy. It is much less trouble
for me to save and unpack a coded archive and then see if its subject
really indicates useful material, and throw it away a minute or two
later if not, than to debug problems caused by code known to be useful,
but containing no useful information because the shipping method didn't
protect the code. Since I have to believe that this trade-off is the
same for anyone as competent as my modest competence with the unwrapping
tools, then I must conclude that those who find using the tools so
difficult that the trade-off is in the opposite direction have
_deliberately_ _chosen_ to bitch rather than exert the small effort
required to learn a minumum competence with the tools.

> *REDUCE FLAME INTENSITY*

> Also it is impolite to change the follow-up line without mentioning it
> in the body of the message.

A minimal competence with news software includes looking to see where you
are posting.  Warnings for the less competent are not a requisite for
polite posting.  If you can't play the game, get off the field.

Also, You posted a flame in alt.sources.d. The proper newsgroup for
flames is alt.flame.

>From your inability to target your posting correctly, what should I
conclude about your competence, and your claims of competence, with
simple news article processing software and conventions?

> *FLAME OFF*

> When I see a source posting that sounds interesting I always scan it
> to see what it is like. First I look at the readme file and if still
> interested I check out some of the code. Throwing a bunch of factors
> together I make a decision about whether to keep it or pass. I don't
> necessarily throw away something if it is uuencoded but the odds
> against keeping it rise. I also post all my sources in CTSP making
> sure that the readme file is the first thing in the file. I appreciate
> it when others do the same for me.

What prevents you from doing all of this after you have taken the few
moments to unpack an archive?  Only if you blunder around spending
tens of minutes doing this simple task would this seem to you the
insurmountable problem your religiously toned posting would suggest it
is.  You want to trade off a few moment's work for archive integrity;
I maintain that is a poor tradeoff, as you will lose far more time in
repairing the damages done by perverse news software to unprotected
desired archives than you ever spend unpacking protected undesired ones.

Kent, the man from xanth.
<xanthian at Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian at well.sf.ca.us>