mason@utcsri.UUCP (Dave Mason) (11/04/85)
I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now
this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like
unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to
have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc.
I said all this a couple of months ago, got about thirty responses,
only to be told "you didn't go about it the right way", which I think
is a little crazy to be told after the fact. I now understand that the
right way to do it is to swamp the net. So if you want net.os, use your
'f' (not 'F') key NOW!
--
Usenet: {dalcs dciem garfield musocs qucis sask titan trigraph ubc-vision
utzoo watmath allegra cornell decvax decwrl ihnp4 uw-beaver}
!utcsri!mason Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRI/ Ryerson Polytech
CSNET: mason@Toronto
ARPA: mason%Toronto@CSNet-Relay
BITNET: FCTY7053@RYERSON.BITNETrpw3@redwood.UUCP (Rob Warnock) (11/08/85)
I think that "net.arch" would do for O/S topics, for now, with a
possible "net.arch.os" if the volume or specialization get out of
hand. (I also prefer "net.lang.compilers" to "net.compilers"...)
I agree that Unix isn't everything, especially when talking about
practical or theoretical issues that Unix has neglected (such as
good software interrupts (NOT merely "signals")).
Rob Warnock
Systems Architecture Consultant
UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax!dual}!fortune!redwood!rpw3
DDD: (415)572-2607
USPS: 627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403swami@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/08/85)
yes, another vote for net.os. eventually i did lose patience wading thru unix-wizards. i can't see why anyone should want to flood the net. why can't they take mail responses as votes? powers-that-be, comment please. swami@a.cs.uiuc.edu
ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (0058) (11/09/85)
> I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now > this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like > unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to > have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc. > > Usenet: {dalcs dciem garfield musocs qucis sask titan trigraph ubc-vision > utzoo watmath allegra cornell decvax decwrl ihnp4 uw-beaver} > !utcsri!mason Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRI/ Ryerson Polytech I think it is an excellent idea. ucbvax!ucdavis!vega!ccrdave
lien@osu-eddie.UUCP (Nan Lien) (11/10/85)
> I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now > this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like > unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to > have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc. > Here is my vote for net.os. Yao-Nan Lien Department of Computer and Information Science Ohio State University 2036, Neil Ave. Mall Columbus, Ohio 43210-1277 Tel 614 422-5236 CSNet : lien@ohio-state.CSNET UUCP : osu-eddie!lien@cbosgd.UUCP or cbosgd!osu-eddie!lien
bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) (11/12/85)
> I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now > this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like > unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to > have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc. > > I said all this a couple of months ago, got about thirty responses, > only to be told "you didn't go about it the right way", which I think > is a little crazy to be told after the fact. I now understand that the > right way to do it is to swamp the net. So if you want net.os, use your > 'f' (not 'F') key NOW! A basic fallacy in the logic of having existing net traffic indicate the need for a new newsgroup is that current postings are often suppressed due to the inadequacy of existing forums. Particularly in the case of net.os: is one to believe that an IMPARTIAL discussion of an operating system principle which is NOT incorportated in Unix today could POSSIBLY take place in net.unix-wizards? I would VERY MUCH like to see a net.os, and the articles I might post to such a group are NOT being posted ANYWHERE yet. So I think this will result in an increase in overall net traffic, and I think that, in this case, that is good. I would imagine the situation was probably similar in the case of net.database. -- - bc - ..!{seismo,topaz,gatech,nbires,ihnp4}!ut-sally!cyb-eng!bc (512) 835-2266
arturo@humming.UUCP (Arturo Perez) (11/16/85)
In article <783@cyb-eng.UUCP>, bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) writes: > > I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now > > this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like > > unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to > > have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc. > > > > I said all this a couple of months ago, got about thirty responses, > > only to be told "you didn't go about it the right way", which I think > > is a little crazy to be told after the fact. I now understand that the > > right way to do it is to swamp the net. So if you want net.os, use your > > 'f' (not 'F') key NOW!
andy@cheviot.uucp (Andy Linton) (11/19/85)
I would like to support net.os for two reasons. I think a discussion group for os topics is a good idea and it might remove some of the non unix topics from unix and unix-wizards. This is YES vote!
john@dcl-cs.UUCP (J.R.N.) (11/19/85)
I suggested the need for a (distributed) operating systems group about 6 months ago. There was lots of interested people (including a number of "top researchers" in the field - I still have the evidence!!). However, I still couldn't convince any of the net administrators to set up the group and so gave up after several attempts. I'm glad someone else somewhere else has taken over! (All the best...) -- UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!john| Post: University of Lancaster, DARPA: john%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Department of Computing, JANET: john@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK. Phone: +44 524 65201 Ext. 4146 | LA1 4YR Project: Cosmos Distributed Operating Systems Research
template@megatek.UUCP (Template) (11/21/85)
> I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now > this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like > unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to > have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc. > Here is my vote for net.os.
joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) (11/22/85)
I agree. net.os should be a class of newsgroups, as in
net.os.unix
net.os.unix-wizards
net.os.os9
perhaps even
net.os.vms
since the "vax" news groups tend to look like this.
If we have a hierarchy of net.micro.*, why not operating systems?
--
Joel West (619) 457-9681
CACI, Inc. Federal, 3344 N. Torrey Pines Ct., La Jolla, CA 92037
{cbosgd,ihnp4,pyramid,sdcsvax,ucla-cs}!gould9!joel
gould9!joel@nosc.ARPAjon@nsc.UUCP (Jon Ryshpan) (11/23/85)
In article <188@gould9.UUCP> joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) writes: >I agree. net.os should be a class of newsgroups, as in > net.os.unix > net.os.unix-wizards > net.os.os9 >perhaps even > net.os.vms >since the "vax" news groups tend to look like this. > >If we have a hierarchy of net.micro.*, why not operating systems? >-- I think so too. This looks like the best proposal i've seen so far about this. -- Jonathan Ryshpan {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!jon nsc!jon@decwrl.ARPA Let justice be done though the heavens fall.
rrr@milo.UUCP (Richard Rush) (12/02/85)
> In article <783@cyb-eng.UUCP>, bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) writes: > > > I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now > > > this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like > > > unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to > > > have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc. > > > > > > I said all this a couple of months ago, got about thirty responses, > > > only to be told "you didn't go about it the right way", which I think > > > is a little crazy to be told after the fact. I now understand that the > > > right way to do it is to swamp the net. So if you want net.os, use your > > > 'f' (not 'F') key NOW! YES FOR NET.OS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (12/04/85)
In article <686@milo.UUCP>, rrr@milo.UUCP (Richard Rush) writes: >> In article <783@cyb-eng.UUCP>, bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) writes: >> > > I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now >> > > this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like >> > > unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to >> > > have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc. >> > > >> > > I said all this a couple of months ago, got about thirty responses, >> > > only to be told "you didn't go about it the right way", which I think >> > > is a little crazy to be told after the fact. I now understand that the >> > > right way to do it is to swamp the net. So if you want net.os, use your >> > > 'f' (not 'F') key NOW! > >YES FOR NET.OS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I SECOND THE MOTION! -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy
mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mark D. Freeman) (12/04/85)
It makes far more sense to me to carry on a discussion of IBM-PC networks (Novell, etc.) in a seperate newsgroup, rather than overload the regular IBM group with this sort of thing. Perhaps a subgroup for machine specific net under that machine's regular newsgroup would be appropriate.
ken@turtlevax.UUCP (Ken Turkowski) (12/09/85)
I vote for net.os. Where else would people discuss the successor to UNIX?
--
UNIX is a trademark of Bell Labs and/or AT&T
--
Ken Turkowski @ CIMLINC, Menlo Park, CA
UUCP: {amd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,spar}!turtlevax!ken
ARPA: turtlevax!ken@DECWRL.DEC.COMkwan@smeagol.UUCP (Richard_Kwan) (12/10/85)
In article <783@cyb-eng.UUCP>, bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) writes: > I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. ... ellipsis ... > So if you want net.os, use your 'f' (not 'F') key NOW! Good grief... are we still tallying votes? YES FOR NET.OS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
madmonk@chinet.UUCP (William M. Fischer) (12/15/85)
Indeed, another yes for net.os! -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Nemo me impune lacessit" Bill Fischer madmonk@chinet.UUCP =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
kenyon@nmtvax.UUCP (12/15/85)
>>YES FOR NET.OS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >I SECOND THE MOTION! I third the motion. -- Robert Kenyon p / ...ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!kenyon / kenyon@nmt / g New Mexico Tech, Home of the world's fastest sheep, "Fluffy, the Wonder Ewe" 1984-85 World Champ!
gilbert@aimmi.UUCP (Gilbert Cockton) (12/16/85)
I vote for net.os
ddl@tardis.UUCP (Dan Lanciani) (12/17/85)
Since we are starting over, I again cast my vote FOR net.os. Dan Lanciani ddl@tardis.*
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (12/18/85)
> Since we are starting over, I again cast my vote FOR net.os.
ARGH! NO!!!!
For the 357th time, calling for a vote in a public newsgroup read by
everyone is NOT PROPER PRACTICE. Everyone will have to read hundreds
of silly vote messages, when most people really are not interested at
all. The way to conduct a vote by the net is for someone to volunteer
to collect votes, and then everyone else *MAILS* their votes to him.
When the flurry dies down, he then posts a *summary* of the results.
Can we get this pollution off the technical newsgroups?!?
And by the way, one does not create a newsgroup by voting on it. One
creates a newsgroup by demonstrating a substantial volume of traffic in
an existing newsgroup that would like to be rid of it. For lack of
anything better, net.unix or net.micro would be the obvious places for
this one. Or maybe net.misc. It is not enough to have lots of people
who are interested in *reading* a newsgroup, it is necessary to have
people who will *write* for it. Over and over again, groups have
been created as the result of popular enthusiasm, only to fizzle and
die because nobody ever submitted anything to them after the first week.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryken@turtlevax.UUCP (Ken Turkowski) (12/19/85)
I forty-second the motion for a net.os!!!
--
Ken Turkowski @ CIMLINC, Menlo Park, CA
UUCP: {amd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,spar}!turtlevax!ken
ARPA: turtlevax!ken@DECWRL.DEC.COMhgill@idec.UUCP (H. Gill) (12/20/85)
I vote for NET.OS too !!.
bob@eed092.UUCP (prototype account) (12/21/85)
> >>YES FOR NET.OS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >I SECOND THE MOTION! > I third the motion. I fourth the motion. Robert Harold Ford Motor Co. EED DPTC B-206 17000 Rotunda Dr. Dearborn, MI 48121-6010