BetaArchive
https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/

Checking on upload status of SCO Xenix 386 v2.2.3b
https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=38410
Page 1 of 1

Author:  jeffpar [ Fri May 11, 2018 5:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Checking on upload status of SCO Xenix 386 v2.2.3b

I recently uploaded a copy of SCO Xenix 386 v2.2.3b (which I originally posted here: https://www.pcjs.org/disks/pcx86/unix/sco/xenix/386/2.2.3b/) and am wondering if/when/where I find out if the upload has been accepted (and if not, why not). I would have preferred to PM someone about it, but I don't have 3 approved posts yet.

I'll also take this opportunity to respond to a PM that mrpijey sent me regarding contributions. I appreciate that BetaArchive has strict rules and high standards. I own and operate PCjs (https://www.pcjs.org) and I have high standards of my own. Over the years, I have found and posted a number of hard-to-find items on my site (eg, the first online copy of Multitasking MS-DOS 4.0), and I don't attach any strings whatsoever to the content I post, so I'm willing to bet that some of that content has found its way into BetaArchive.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to find out what's in BetaArchive, so I'm never sure what software on my site is worth the time to repackage into a BetaArchive-approved format, or whether someone else has already "beaten me to the punch", making my upload redundant and ineligible for contribution credit.

If I'm wrong, and nothing from PCjs is already in BetaArchive, then I guess I'll keep trying to guess what content might be of interest here. I just wish I didn't have to engage in a lot of redundant "cross-archiving" simply to demonstrate good will and proof that I'm not a leecher or someone who never gives back to the community. PCjs should be proof enough of that.

Apologies for the mild grumbling. Again, nothing wrong with high standards.

Author:  mrpijey [ Fri May 11, 2018 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Checking on upload status of SCO Xenix 386 v2.2.3b

Hi!

I don't respond to every upload, only those that come with a FTP application. And we need to get a proper dump of a retail title before FTP membership can be accepted. I understand that some stuff are difficult to get and may not be possible to get from original media, and we can archive those too (along with your upload) but we still need an original contribution. Our primary goal is to get proper and original dumps and not web downloads and stuff that has rolled around on various torrent and warez sites which is why we have this requirement.

As for what we have and require, check my signature. It's a raw listing, but until we can get a database up and running that will do. Or just ask (me preferably, or on the forum if you can't PM). Once you get access to the FTP you'll be able to do a more thorough check as well.

Naturally stuff from your site may have ended up here, but since it's impossible to trace and prove origins we credit the uploader and not the originating site.

Let e know if you need any further assistance. I am also available on Discord if you want a more direct means of communication.

Author:  Darkstar [ Sat May 12, 2018 1:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Checking on upload status of SCO Xenix 386 v2.2.3b

jeffpar wrote:
I'll also take this opportunity to respond to a PM that mrpijey sent me regarding contributions. I appreciate that BetaArchive has strict rules and high standards. I own and operate PCjs (https://www.pcjs.org) and I have high standards of my own. Over the years, I have found and posted a number of hard-to-find items on my site (eg, the first online copy of Multitasking MS-DOS 4.0), and I don't attach any strings whatsoever to the content I post, so I'm willing to bet that some of that content has found its way into BetaArchive.

Speaking of which, I recently heard complaints that the disk images you provide on pcjs.org are modified (i.e. not original dumps) ... I don't know the exact details (probably the OEM string or volume label or something) but if that is true, your uploads will not be accepted on the FTP i fear :-(

Author:  jeffpar [ Sat May 12, 2018 3:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Checking on upload status of SCO Xenix 386 v2.2.3b

Everything I have offered to BetaArchive (including the SCO Xenix disks) is unmodified.

The content on PCjs is a different story. I don't store raw disk images on the server, because I'm not interested in being a "downloads" site. As a result, I'm not saddled with the same concerns that BetaArchive has (ie, people leeching everything off the site and then walking away). And I'm willing to use patched copies of copy-protected software, if necessary, to demo it. That said, the vast majority of the software running on PCjs is unmodified. I also try to include directory listings of every disk, so that you can see the original file sizes, timestamps, etc.

People can save any disk that has been loaded into a PCjs virtual machine, and yes, if it's a DOS disk, it will include a PCjs signature in the OEM field. Any changes you made to the disk (directly or indirectly) will be saved in the disk image as well. And PCjs tries to make 160Kb and 320Kb DOS disks mountable in modern operating systems by including a BPB in the boot sector. I'm sure anyone who's concerned about those things will simply go elsewhere for their downloads -- and I'm fine with that.

I think those are reasonable trade-offs, given how open and accessible PCjs is. For example, anyone can now download the copy of COMPAQ MS-DOS 2.11 that I just added to the project. There's not a lot of incentive for me to turn around and also package that up as BetaArchive bundle -- I've already archived it once, and it's already available to everyone.

Author:  mrpijey [ Sat May 12, 2018 7:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Checking on upload status of SCO Xenix 386 v2.2.3b

We simply have different goals with our projects. We go for quality, to make the best preserved copy of the title. You go for quick availability and use.

But of course, anything you might have that is original and you want to preserve can be uploaded here. Just make sure it's completely unmodified.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/