guido@boring.UUCP (10/19/85)
I received notice that the net.bureaucrats wanted net.internat to be removed, go moderated or be restricted to Europe. Maybe the proper procedures haven't been followed, but the need for such a group is obvious. Restricting it to Europe seems contradictory to its purpose and smells of ostrich-policy. Europe is still the second-largest market for many US-based hardware and software vendors! It seems that a group like this would have a fairly serious audience, so I don't see why the group should start off as a moderated group. If traffic volume becomes a problem we can *then* go moderated, but I don't believe this will be necessary. Consider this article as a YES vote for net.internat. Guido van Rossum, CWI, Amsterdam (guido@mcvax.UUCP)
dc@datlog.UUCP ( David Crone ) (10/20/85)
In article <6659@boring.UUCP> guido@mcvax.UUCP (Guido van Rossum) writes: >I received notice that the net.bureaucrats wanted net.internat to be removed... I entirely agree with Guido and all other like minded people who wish to see net.internat kept up AS A NET newsgroup not just a European group. OK some policy rules about starting a group may have been misunderstood or not carried out by Mike Banahan but it is absolutely vital that this discussion be open to all (including those American people :-) ) . Dave (19th Nervous Breakdown) Crone
apm@iclbra.UUCP (Andy Merritt) (10/21/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
Surely net.internat is exactly the sort of newsgroup USENET needs and is
suitable for; all the interested parties (well, those on the net anyway) can
put their views on the internationalisation issue at first hand, and those
who might have not even considered that there were any problems let alone
what they were may have their eyes opened.
This should be a relatively high content group; at least it is related
to computing, would be positively making use of the wide geographical area
covered by the net and would make a change from the endless discussions on
whether one's heritage has been lost because a soft drink formula has changed.
This is a YES vote for net.internat.
/^^^\
( o o )
--w---U---w-- UUCP: ...!ukc!stc!iclbra!apm
"Wot, no graphix?" MAIL: Andrew Merritt, ICL, Lovelace Rd, Bracknell, Berksken@rochester.UUCP (and Vicki Herrieschopper) (10/21/85)
I find the material in this group interesting. I don't see why only
Europe should get this group. I vote to keep net.internat.
Ken
--
UUCP: ..!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!ken ARPA: ken@rochester.arpa
USnail: Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Rochester, NY 14627. Voice: Ken!radzy@calma.uucp (Tim Radzykewycz) (10/21/85)
I feel that net.internat is a reasonable group to have. The discussions there have not yet solved "the problem of language and computers", but at the very least, it does promote some amount of awareness of what is involved in producing a reasonable multi-lingual computer system, whether it be UN*X or some other beast. This is a "yes" vote for net.internat. PS I hope this isn't too late. I just subscribed to net.news.group recently. -- Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz calma!radzy@ucbvax.ARPA ucbvax!calma!radzy
andrew@stc.UUCP (10/22/85)
I also think this issue MUCH too important to be hidden under the
carpet by our insular colleagues across the pond.
The rest of the world does not speak American, let alone English. The
issues are much wider than simple consideration in terms of *ix, they
are of direct relevence to anyone wishing to operate computers within
an international framework. This is not to imply that the issue is not
suitable for discussion in terms of *ix, after all *ix is the operating
system which travels best at present, and any solutions found here will
eventually wend their way into other o/s environments.
Come on chaps, this marvelous network *should* be emphasising the
global village, ( for information, not wanted ads :-) ). Please
consider this another YES vote, since those made outwith the confines
of the net seem to be discounted.
--
Regards,
Andrew Macpherson. <andrew@stc.UUCP>
{aivru,creed,datlog,iclbra,iclkid,idec,inset,root44,stl,ukc}!stc!andrewpiet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (10/22/85)
<> Although I agree that this newsgroup has in no way been set up in the proper way a new newsgroup should be set up on USENET/EUNET, I think - given the reactions I've seen sofar - this newsgroup should *not* be removed and should *not* be a EUNET-only newsgroup. After all internationalization (-sation) *is* a technical issue of worldwide, and thus net-wide interest. And don't forget that USENET is not identical with the USA, but also covers e.g. Australia, Japan, Korea etc. Those countries cannot receive eunet newsgroups. Maybe the name chosen was a bit too general; in that case it should just be renamed (net.unix-intl?). And if there's really (and amazingly) not a single bit of interest in this newsgroup in the US, spreading over the US can always be inhibited in a very early stage, without affecting the forwarding to the other countries mentioned and without the newsgroup having to be removed. -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam (piet@mcvax.UUCP)
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (10/26/85)
>This is a "yes" vote for net.internat. > >PS I hope this isn't too late. I just subscribed to net.news.group >recently. >Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz ditto. charli
gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) (10/26/85)
I'd like to propose a new newsgroup called "net.internat". It was discussed by a large number of Usenet participants at a European Unix Users Group conference and consensus was reached that a net-wide newsgroup was needed. This consensus has been further shown by postings in [the illegal immoral] net.internat and in net.news.group by folks who were not able to attend the conference. I don't recall seeing a single poster who thought the group should not exist. Consensus on the name is less widespread, with various factions advocating longer or shorter names, subgroup of net.unix or independent newsgroup. The name "net.internat" seems to be a reasonable compromise and acceptable to enough people. Can the appropriate wizards wave the appropriate wands and create a newsgroup? Thank you.
keld@diku.UUCP (Keld J|rn Simonsen) (10/27/85)
<> Please bear in mind that the net.internat was created as a decision on a BOF on international UNIX at the EUUG conference in Copenhagen and that the newsgroup was intended for further work of this group, also formalised as the EUUG + /usr/group/UK standardisation committee on international UNIX. The newsgroup should be UNIX only. I originally proposed net.intnl as the name. I would rather propose the name net.unix-intnl or net.unix.intnl now. There are various questionaires underway. Respond to them, not me. Keld Simonsen EUUG Executive Committee EUUG representative in International UNIX standardisation committee
fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. &) (10/27/85)
Naming is important. Since EUUG is a UNIX users group, and since this network is 98% UNIX machines, I expect that the content of the group will be about internationalizing UNIX (particularly since we, as a group of people, have more influence over UNIX than any other operating system). Therefore, let's call it net.unix.intnl I'd suggest that it be moderated (i.e. mod.unix.intnl) for the same reasons that Rick Adams cited, but I'd probably get flamed for saying that. Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU
sommar@enea.UUCP (Erland Sommarskog) (10/28/85)
I would also like to give my vote for net.internat. The background for the conference are some of the most important development in the computer business, namely a betetr man-machine communication. Of course net.internat shall not be restricted to Europe. Such ideas belongs to net.bizzare!
robert@erix.UUCP (Robert Virding) (10/29/85)
In article <10818@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. &) writes: >Naming is important. Since EUUG is a UNIX users group, and since this >network is 98% UNIX machines, I expect that the content of the group >will be about internationalizing UNIX (particularly since we, as a group >of people, have more influence over UNIX than any other operating system). >Therefore, let's call it net.unix.intnl Definitely not, UNIX isn't the whole world (most of it maybe, but not all of it :-)). Maybe net.internat is a bad name but net.intnl sounds more like net.internal. Why not net.international? Robert Virding @ L M Ericsson, Stockholm UUCP: {decvax,philabs,seismo}!mcvax!enea!erix!robert
nick@inset.UUCP (Nick Stoughton) (10/29/85)
In article <10818@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. &) writes: >Naming is important. Since EUUG is a UNIX users group, and since this >network is 98% UNIX machines, I expect that the content of the group >will be about internationalizing UNIX (particularly since we, as a group >of people, have more influence over UNIX than any other operating system). >Therefore, let's call it net.unix.intnl > Whilst (and unfortunately) it may be true that UNIX will have a big influence on the discussions on this newsgroup, it should not ne bounded to just discussions on internationalising that Operating System. Naming it net.unix.intnl may scare off otherwise valuable contributions merely because they are not about UNIX. I think the name should stay! -------- Nick Stoughton nick@inset.co.uk Am I a mere sheep?? nick@inset.UUCP ...!ukc!inset!nick
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (10/31/85)
In article <766@inset.UUCP> nick@inset.UUCP (Nick Stoughton) writes: >In article <10818@ucbvax> fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. &) writes: >>Naming is important. Since EUUG is a UNIX users group, and since this >>network is 98% UNIX machines, I expect that the content of the group >>will be about internationalizing UNIX (particularly since we, as a group >>of people, have more influence over UNIX than any other operating system). >>Therefore, let's call it net.unix.intnl > >I think the name should stay! Well, net.internat has been recreated with this name so the discussions seem sort of moot now. Also, let's not post any more articles to net.news.group on this topic. \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Don't cry, don't do anything No lies, back in the government No tears, party time is here again President Gas is up for president (c) Psychedelic Furs, 1982
mikeb@inset.UUCP (Mike Banahan) (11/01/85)
In article <987@erix.UUCP> robert@erix.UUCP (Robert Virding) writes: >UNIX isn't the whole world (most of it maybe, but not >all of it :-)). Maybe net.internat is a bad name but net.intnl sounds >more like net.internal. Why not net.international? > Can I add my little bit? I guess that it's a bit of flame: FLAME ON Who the **** cares what the **** the group is called? I don't care if it is called net.pig's-bladder as long as the contents is on the subject of internationalisation. I am *strongly* reminded of that famous debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Let's get on with debating character sets, collating sequences, natural language messages - not the name of the newsgroup. FLAME OFF Aah, it's good to get that out of my system. -- Mike Banahan, Technical Director, The Instruction Set Ltd. mcvax!ukc!inset!mikeb