jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) (11/19/90)
I do not recall the discussion ever making it to news.groups... until now.
With guidelines in hand, here we go!
Per the "Guidelines for USENET Group Creation" I have just mailed the
following to Eliot Lear, moderator of news.announce.newgroups.
Requirement 1 is a call for discussion on creation of a new newsgroup
to be posted to news.announce.newgroups. Within a week or so, assuming
that I have met Eliot's requirements, he will make the official posting.
The requirements suggest the CFD be posted to any other groups or mailing
lists at all related to the proposed topic. This takes care of the two
newsgroups, any mailing lists out there?
The requirements also read, "The Followup-to: header will be set so that
the actual discussion takes place only in news.groups." I have asked
Eliot to modify this CFD to allow crossposting to the unix-pc groups as
well since I know many of you do not get news.groups.
The guidelines are rather specific about how this process is to proceed.
If there is a *need*, I will post the guidelines here.
The name and charter and moderation are to be worked out in the discussion
period. If there is no general agreement amoung proponents after 30 days,
the discussion should be taken offline. I persume that this 30 days refers
to the time after the posting in news.announce.newgroups. This discussion
has been going on for years. This should end it for another six months,
one way or another. :-)
Voting *only* follows after said general agreement is reached amoung the
*proponents* of the newgroup.
Okay. Here is my posting/mail to the moderator. The guidelines do *not*
say that we have to wait for the *official* posting to get our ducks
lined up.
So let's have it with a healthy discussion. flames > /dev/null.
Jan
--
Issha Zetsumei | Jan Isley jan@bagend
One arrow, then you die. | known_universe!gatech!bagend!jan
*******
CALL FOR DISCUSSION: create comp.sys.3b1
This has come up once again in unix-pc.general and comp.sys.att.
I can recall at least 4 different long winded discussions over the
years on the pros and cons of merging the unix-pc groups into
comp.sys.att. These disscusions are usually started by a flame fest
because someone did not want unix-pc articles cross posted to the
comp.sys.att group. Go figure.
CALL FOR DISCUSSION: Creation of comp.sys.3b1
my recommedations are:
Name: comp.sys.3b1
Purpose: Discussion about the 3B1/7300 line of computers.
To include related Convergent Technologies models.
Unmoderated: nuff said.
I think the Purpose line pretty well sums up my idea of a charter for
this group. Now that I have thrown the ball out, I guess that I am
supposed to start off with some rational reasons why we need comp.sys.3b1.
Well, why not. There are lots of people out in the world who have 3b1s.
A great many of us would still not have a UNIX computer at home if it were
not for AT&T's marketing failure and subsequent liquidation of this machine.
It is also on the desks of many thousands of AT&T employees. There is a
large audience for the 3b1 despite the low readership numbers posted for
comp.sys.att and the unix-pc groups.
The unix-pc group and comp.sys.att are the only support many if not all
of these owners are ever going to get. *I* get mail from AT&T employees
looking for help and information and I have never worked for AT&T :)
Imagine calling SUN tech support and getting the following:
"what? you need help with your 3/60. Well, that is not our
current top-of-the-line model so there is not a soul here that
knows anything about them? You really need help? Okay, give
me a charge card number and for $150 an hour you can talk to
someone that maybe can find a manual to read out of to you... etc...
get the picture? No offense intended to SUN, they give us great support.
Just the first example I could think of.
BUT, you have comp.sys.att and unix-pc you say! Well, yes and no.
It is getting harder to wade through the 3b2/6300/386 traffic in sys.att.
There are standing offers from myself and many others to offer a unix-pc
feed to anyone who wants to call, and many "backbone" sites do carry it,
but many do not. There is a large community of 3b1 users in Canada and
Europe that can only get the blessedbyspaf official groups.
WHY NOT comp.sys.att.3b1?
By my reasoning, I am including owners of AT&T sold 7300s, UNIX-PCs, and
3B1s. And, several models sold by Convergent, the actual designers and
builders of the hardware. 3b1 is a little more generic, easier to type,
and resists the next obvious reorganization war:
comp.sys.att.3b2|6300|386|sx|olivetti|intel|etc...
someone else can take that one on.
WHAT ABOUT THE unix-pc. groups?
They can be left in place as far as I am concerned. Cross posted to the
new comp.sys.3b1 or not. I do not see the creation of a mainstream news
group as a reason to dismantle the unix-pc groups. If they are crossposted
it would only help to speed the distribution. Sites that do not carry any
of the alternative groups would stop getting bugged by irate unix-pc owners.
Sites that carry both would suffer no loss. Everybody wins.
WHAT ABOUT unix-pc|comp.sys.3b1.bugs|sources|test|uucp?
There is *not* enough traffic to justify more than one group.
Got some great sources, post them.
SUMMARY
There is a lot of very useful information circulating about these computers
but many people who really need the help cannot get for some very good and
bad reasons. I feel that comp.sys.3b1 would consolidate this information
and get it to the maximum number of people who could benefit from it.
Unix-pc network folks, I see no need to dismantle our little network.
We are connected, lets just try to help out those who are not.
--
Issha Zetsumei | Jan Isley jan@bagend
One arrow, then you die. | known_universe!gatech!bagend!jan templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) (11/19/90)
I for one concur with nearly everything Mr. Isley said in his posting. I think he left out one other reason for creating comp.sys.3b1: In article <1990Nov19.040128.29048@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes: >I think the Purpose line pretty well sums up my idea of a charter for >this group. Now that I have thrown the ball out, I guess that I am >supposed to start off with some rational reasons why we need comp.sys.3b1. > >Well, why not. There are lots of people out in the world who have 3b1s. One other reason for creating comp.sys.3b1 is that now we are having lots of erroneous posts to unix-pc.* by people who are running *nix clones on their 80xx6 PC-clone machines, thinking that unix-pc means "unix on an IBM-PC (clone) machine. comp.sys.3b1 seems an unlikely name to confuse with anything else (except maybe for a place to post requests to send mail to guiness book of world records candidates.) Jeff
wilber@alice.att.com (Bob Wilber) (11/20/90)
I don't see much point in creating comp.sys.3b1 unless it *replaces*
unix-pc.*.
If unix-pc stays around then:
1. 1/4 of the posts will go only to unix-pc.*, 1/4 will go only to
comp.sys.3b1, and 1/2 will be cross posted to both. Just like the
current situation with respect to comp.sys.att.
2. People will continue to cross post Intel articles to unix-pc.*.
3. If some sort of automatic gate-way scheme is used to try to alleviate
problem 1, then all those Intel posts will wind up in comp.sys.3b1 too.
So we won't have gained a heck of a lot. Is it really the case that people
who have managed to get their hands on the elusive unix-pc.* hierarchy
will find it so difficult to instead get a single main hierarchy newsgroup?
(And no, you aren't forced to get a "full news feed" just because you want
one group.)
Bob Wilbercrtb@helix.nih.gov (Chuck Bacon) (11/20/90)
Here is my collection of points to consider in the discussion.
Others may do this more elegantly, but I think I cover them all
fairly well. Please backflame if I miss something.
A. We wish to create a newsgroup, comp.sys.3b1, to augment and eventually
replace the five existing unix-pc.* newsgroups because:
1. The unix-pc.* newsgroups are unknown at many sites; many newsgroup
managers say that only "standard" named newsgroups can be allowed.
2. One newsgroup instead of five. I've been reading comp.sys.att for
about a year, and unix-pc for about three months. In all that time,
I think I've seen about two "test" messages in those groups.
I've seen a small number of "sources" (almost all shell scripts),
posted to comp.sys.att and unix-pc.general. I'm not sure, but I
don't think I've ever seen an entry in unix-pc.{sources,bugs}.
3. Considering comp.sources.3b1 as one of multiple groups; I run
Larry Wall's rrn. I routinely say: rrn unix-pc and get the
five newsgroups (any that are non-empty). If I were to command:
rrn comp.sources , I would get everybody else's sources too!
4. Multiple newsgroup names versus a single name; I prefer the single
name comp.sys.3b1. After all, if all the other AT&T models can
exist within one newsgroup, I think we can too. Sources don't
live very long on our nntp server (48 hours?), so it's just as
well if I see 'em as soon as posted. Also the traffic: I think
the average posting on unix-pc.* has been about ten a day across
all five NGs. I can look at the first screenlload of a posting
and hit n if I don't want to look at the rest. Or, if I run xrn
(at work), I can go down the list of subject lines.
B. Now for some negatives; reasons NOT to create a comp.sys.3b1
1. The name unix-pc being rather unusual, it is more likely that a
3b1 owner will have to find a feed from a fellow hobbyist. This
breeds self-reliance. The very difficulty of getting the feed
will enhance the sense of pride in those who succeed.
2. The 3b1/7300/unix-pc/Miniframe is a wonderful machine, particularly
at the price. Creation of a virtual advertisement for the 3b1
through the existence of a more visible newsgroup name like
comp.sys.3b1 will attract more people to this system. This will
tend to result in greater demand for these systems, thus higher
prices for second machines, parts etc. I'm sure everybody who
has one thinks it's expensive enough already. (If you're trying to
sell one of these, don't read this).
I can't think of anything more on the subject. I've been very impressed
with the quality of what I've seen in the unix-pc newsgroups. Every
posting I've seen is thoughtful, and many have been useful. If I've
violated the usual courtesy of brevity (Oh Polonius, where are you
when I need you?), I apologize.
--
Chuck Bacon - crtb@helix.nih.gov - 301-496-4823
"After all, computers have rights too!" - Ernst Bacon, 1898-1990dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US (David H. Brierley) (11/20/90)
I think one of the things that this discussion has made clear to me is that sites that thought they were well connected in terms of unix-pc.* are in fact not well connected. I have eight separate news feeds sending me the unix-pc.* groups (and conversely, sending my stuff back out) and yet I have seen several replies that I never saw the base article to. Also, I posted a message saying that I was taking an informal survey which would be followed by a formal call for discussion if the survey seemed to warrant it and yet two separate people have posted similar messages (one survey and this CFD). I know that my message made it out because I got almost two dozen replies within a few days, almost all in favor of the proposed new group. Anyway, here is my input to the discussion, tempered by the many responses I got to my informal survey. I think we should create two newsgroups. First, comp.sys.3b1 (unmoderated) for discussions of all aspects of the 3b1/7300 machine. This would include the contents of the current unix-pc.* groups with the exception of unix-pc.sources. Second, comp.sources.3b1 (moderated) for postings of source programs specific to the 3b1 and for patches to those programs. The reason for a separate group is to make it easier for sites that would want to archive the sources. The reason for the moderated status is to ensure that the group is suitable for archiving. I am willing to volunteer as the moderator and am willing to provide as much or as little moderation as people want (i.e. is it a source = post it as opposed to unpack everything and test it). If someone objects to having me as moderator or wants to volunteer as co-moderator then that is fine by me. Oh yeah, once the new groups are created (assuming that they are), the old unix-pc.* groups should be disbanded. -- David H. Brierley Home: dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US Work: dhb@quahog.ssd.ray.com Be excellent to each other.
oc@vmp.com (Orlan Cannon) (11/20/90)
In article <72909@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes: >I for one concur with nearly everything Mr. Isley said in his posting. >I think he left out one other reason for creating comp.sys.3b1: > >One other reason for creating comp.sys.3b1 is that now we are having lots >of erroneous posts to unix-pc.* by people who are running *nix clones >on their 80xx6 PC-clone machines, thinking that unix-pc means "unix on >an IBM-PC (clone) machine. Not to mention that "unix-pc" is listed as an "alternative" distribution, which means that news administrators are likely to associate it more with "alt.sex.pictures" than with a normally distributed discussion group about a particular hardware platform. -- Orlan Cannon oc@vmp.com Video Marketing & Publications, Inc. (800) 627-4551 Oradell, NJ 07649
templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) (11/20/90)
Hey, guys, aren't we supposed to be crossposting to news.groups? I xposted my two cents' worth. Someone knowledgeable straighten us out on this. Jeff
tale@rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (11/21/90)
In article <1990Nov20.025651.11472@vmp.com> oc@vmp.com (Orlan Cannon) writes:
Not to mention that "unix-pc" is listed as an "alternative" distribution,
which means that news administrators are likely to associate it more with
"alt.sex.pictures" than with a normally distributed discussion group about
a particular hardware platform.
I'm sorry, but anyone who is doing that is pretty lame. While I am
sure some admins insist on primarily carrying the hierarchies which
were formed from the Great Renaming, associating unix-pc with
alt.sex.pictures rather than comp.sys.* is just patently absurd.
In two weeks worth of news here, just under half of the articles in
unix-pc are crossposted to mainstream groups and this seems typical
for it. 87 non-crossposted articles in two weeks in the whole
hierarchy. If this group is created, what will become of unix-pc?
Should it continue to plod along or could we disband it?
--
(setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))kak@hico2.UUCP (Kris A. Kugel) (11/21/90)
In article <1990Nov19.040128.29048@bagend.uucp>, jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes: > > WHAT ABOUT unix-pc|comp.sys.3b1.bugs|sources|test|uucp? > There is *not* enough traffic to justify more than one group. > Got some great sources, post them. some sites do not carry sources because of their bulk. I'd hate to see our newsgroup kicked out because we can't separate out our sources. I dunno, sometimes I think that the people who pay for the traffic try to figure out how to filter down news traffic, and the rest how to get around the filters. Anyway, if somebody NEEDS to do this kind of filtering, I'd say let them. Kris A. Kugel ( 908 ) 842-2707 { uunet | rutgers }!{ tsdiag | westmark }!hico2!kak att!westmark!hico2!kak {daver,ditka,zorch}!hico2!kak internet: kak@hico2.westmark.com
jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) (11/21/90)
In article <73146@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes: > >Hey, guys, aren't we supposed to be crossposting to news.groups? I xposted >my two cents' worth. Someone knowledgeable straighten us out on this. I did not crosspost my original to news.groups. Sort of waiting for the official posting in news.announce.newgroups. I even took news.groups out of this followup. Yes, I am being paranoid. Why? Regardless of what we may agree to in the unix-pc groups, the debate that may or may not generate a vote *must* take place in news.groups. The guidlines are very clear on that. news.groups has been the home of more flame fests than alt.flame. There are enough people in the net world who will send in a no vote because the CFD had a word mispelled in it. So, I chose to give it a week. Because he has a real job too, Eliot does the news.announce.newgroup postings on Sundays. My mail to him bounced at least twice so even if I met the letter of the guidelines, it will not show up until this weekend. My rationale for this is that it gives us an extra week to build up a consensus within our own community before we have to justify it to a world that gets out of bed each day looking for something to be against. So, I exagerate a little, but only a little. take your pick :-) | )-: Now, someone disagree with me so that we can have a DISCUSSION. Jan -- Do not suffer the company of fools. | home jan@bagend 404-434-1335 Buddha | known_universe!gatech!bagend!jan
dave@das13.snide.com (Dave Snyder) (11/21/90)
In article <11644@alice.att.com>, wilber@alice.att.com (Bob Wilber) writes: > I don't see much point in creating comp.sys.3b1 unless it *replaces* > unix-pc.*. > I agree. Perhaps we should consider RENAMING unix-pc.general to comp.sys.3b1, unix-pc.sources to comp.sources.3b1 and dropping unix-pc.bugs and unix-pc.test. We could also use the aliasing ability of news to keep thing clean. DAS -- David Snyder @ Snide Inc. - Folcroft, PA UUCP: ..!uunet!trac2000!das13!dave INTERNET: dave@das13.snide.com
dave@das13.snide.com (Dave Snyder) (11/21/90)
In article <1085@galaxia.Newport.RI.US>, dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US (David H. Brierley) writes:
-> I think we should create two newsgroups.
-> First, comp.sys.3b1 (unmoderated) for discussions of all aspects of the
-> 3b1/7300 machine. This would include the contents of the current unix-pc.*
-> groups with the exception of unix-pc.sources. Second, comp.sources.3b1
-> (moderated) for postings of source programs specific to the 3b1 and for
-> patches to those programs.
->
A totally sound suggenstion, lets do it!
DAS
--
David Snyder @ Snide Inc. - Folcroft, PA
UUCP: ..!uunet!trac2000!das13!dave INTERNET: dave@das13.snide.comjohn@chance.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) (11/26/90)
dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US (David H. Brierley) writes: |Anyway, here is my input to the discussion, tempered by the many responses |I got to my informal survey. I think we should create two newsgroups. |First, comp.sys.3b1 (unmoderated) for discussions of all aspects of the |3b1/7300 machine. This would include the contents of the current unix-pc.* |groups with the exception of unix-pc.sources. Second, comp.sources.3b1 |(moderated) for postings of source programs specific to the 3b1 and for |patches to those programs. The reason for a separate group is to make it |easier for sites that would want to archive the sources. The reason for |the moderated status is to ensure that the group is suitable for archiving. |I am willing to volunteer as the moderator and am willing to provide as |much or as little moderation as people want (i.e. is it a source = post it |as opposed to unpack everything and test it). I agree about the group names, and moderated status of the sources group. I'd suggest very "light" moderation, and I'm certainly willing to have Dave moderate. |Oh yeah, once the new groups are created (assuming that they are), the |old unix-pc.* groups should be disbanded. Agreed. Otherwise, there will be yet another place we have to watch for stuff, and we'll still get '386 postings... -- John R. MacMillan | I'm in love with a McDonald's girl john@chance.UUCP | She's an angel in a polyester uniform ...!scocan!chance!john | -- barenaked ladies
kak@hico2.UUCP (Kris A. Kugel) (11/27/90)
In article <1085@galaxia.Newport.RI.US>, dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US (David H. Brierley) writes: > I think one of the things that this discussion has made clear to me is that > sites that thought they were well connected in terms of unix-pc.* are in > fact not well connected. I have eight separate news feeds sending me the > unix-pc.* groups (and conversely, sending my stuff back out) and yet I have > seen several replies that I never saw the base article to. Also, I posted > a message saying that I was taking an informal survey which would be followed > by a formal call for discussion if the survey seemed to warrant it and yet > two separate people have posted similar messages (one survey and this CFD). > I know that my message made it out because I got almost two dozen replies > within a few days, almost all in favor of the proposed new group. Timing on the net is "weird and wonderful." For example, I feed unix-pc to 6 different sites. Only one of those feeds is a "pure" feed, sending everything I get. All the rest are filtered somehow. One other site is ihave/sendme, (so they SHOULD get everything eventually), and several others are filtered to remove articles they should have gotten otherwise. For example, I don't forward those unix-pc articles to zorch that have passed through uunet, att, or rutgers, figuring that zorch can get these articles through uunet and the internet easier (and cheaper) than me. I also limit the number of machines that an article can pass through before me and still get to zorch, figuring that zorch will get articles from further away through other means. I try to get my and my near neighbors' articles out to zorch, it's worth the expense to increase reliability. Almost all of the articles I send out are batched/compressed, and the times they get sent out cause oddness in the news flow too. Now if one of my neighbors replys to an article from far away, I'll send the followup to zorch but not the original. So the original might get to zorch's neighbors later than the reply or not at all. > Second, comp.sources.3b1 > (moderated) for postings of source programs specific to the 3b1 and for > patches to those programs. One problem with this is that moderated groups depend on the mail path to the moderator being open. News is more reliable than mail. Posting directly is also much faster distribution, and less of a single-person bottleneck. I wouldn't mind a moderated archive group, distributed only between archive sites. (alt.3b1.sources?) > Oh yeah, once the new groups are created (assuming that they are), the > old unix-pc.* groups should be disbanded. Yes, one or the other but not BOTH. Kris A. Kugel ( 908 ) 842-2707 { uunet | rutgers }!{ tsdiag | westmark }!hico2!kak att!westmark!hico2!kak {daver,ditka,zorch}!hico2!kak internet: kak@hico2.westmark.com