upl@gumby.cs.wisc.edu (Undergrad Projects Lab) (11/13/90)
In article <603@nih-csl.nih.gov> crtb@helix.nih.gov (Chuck Bacon) writes: [ ... ] >I vote for comp.sys.unix-pc, or perhaps comp.sys.3b1 (shorter). Currently in the unix-pc.* groups there is a lot of confusion with PC users running things like Xenix. They think the group is a general discussion group for PC unices. The name "comp.sys.3b1" would help eliminate that confusion. I would recommend that we do something like the current unix-pc.* groups: comp.sys.3b1.general comp.sys.3b1.sources comp.sys.3b1.uucp It seems to me that these are reasonable groups to have, although the latter two do not seem to get that much usage. Perhaps just comp.sys.3b1 would be adequate. Does anyone want to start a call for discussion in news.groups? I don't run news software at my site, so I couldn't possibly create the groups if it were passed. Besides, I'm sure that there is someone out there who is more knowelagble than I am in the process of creating non-alternative news groups. Personally, I'd like to see this. Anyone else have an opinion? - sparkie P.S. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not reply to the account from which this article was posted. Instead, reply to: harier!sparkie@cs.wisc.edu Thanks.
wilber@alice.att.com (Bob Wilber) (11/13/90)
"Sparkie" writes: >Currently in the unix-pc.* groups there is a lot of confusion with PC users >running things like Xenix. They think the group is a general discussion group >for PC unices. The name "comp.sys.3b1" would help eliminate that confusion. >I would recommend that we do something like the current unix-pc.* groups: > comp.sys.3b1.general > comp.sys.3b1.sources > comp.sys.3b1.uucp >It seems to me that these are reasonable groups to have, although the latter >two do not seem to get that much usage. Perhaps just comp.sys.3b1 would be >adequate. Like every other sensible person, I would like to see the transformation unix-pc -> 3b1. I suggest creating precisely two newsgroups: comp.sys.3b1.general comp.sys.3b1.sources When unix-pc.* is not being inundated by newbies with Intel boxes the traffic is very light and can not really justify the fragmentation into .uucp and .bugs. The reason I suggest splitting out comp.sys.3b1.sources is because some sites may be archiving it. (Of course, it would help if people didn't post requests for sources to that group.) I think the best argument for the renaming is that right now about two thirds of all unix-pc.* postings are being cross posted to comp.sys.att (including this one) precisely because "everybody knows" that unix-pc.* doesn't get distributed to all the people who want to read it. Creating comp.sys.3b1.* would eliminate the cross posting and have the side effect that comp.sys.att would become more useful to everyone with an AT&T machine that isn't a 3b1. Bob Wilber wilber@homxb.att.com
dave@das13.snide.com (Dave Snyder) (11/13/90)
In article <1990Nov12.160511.25395@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, upl@gumby.cs.wisc.edu (Undergrad Projects Lab) writes:
-> Currently in the unix-pc.* groups there is a lot of confusion with PC users
-> running things like Xenix. They think the group is a general discussion group
-> for PC unices. The name "comp.sys.3b1" would help eliminate that confusion.
-> I would recommend that we do something like the current unix-pc.* groups:
-> comp.sys.3b1.general
-> comp.sys.3b1.sources
-> comp.sys.3b1.uucp
-> It seems to me that these are reasonable groups to have, although the latter
-> two do not seem to get that much usage. Perhaps just comp.sys.3b1 would be
-> adequate.
->
Not that my two cents matters, but I like these groups. I don't care whether
they are alternate groups or groups buried in comp.sys; I will still want them
on my machine no matter how the heirarchy is. I can honestly say though, that
I like the "3b1" verbage better than the "unix-pc" wording (too much leadway
for incorrect assumptions w/ "unix-pc").
--
David Snyder @ Snide Inc. - Folcroft, PA
UUCP: ..!uunet!trac2000!das13!dave INTERNET: dave@das13.snide.comrhaar@rcsrlh.GMR.COM (Bob Haar CS50) (11/13/90)
In article <11610@alice.att.com>, wilber@alice.att.com (Bob Wilber) writes: |> Like every other sensible person, I would like to see the transformation |> unix-pc -> 3b1. I suggest creating precisely two newsgroups: |> |> comp.sys.3b1.general |> comp.sys.3b1.sources Sounds good to me. You've got my vote. Bob Haar CSNET: HAAR@GMR.COM UUCP: uunet!edsews!rphroy!rcsrlh!rhaar Computer Science Dept., G.M. Research Laboratories DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, everything in this note is personal opinion, not an official statement of General Motors Corp.
mhw@lock60.UUCP (Mark H. Weber) (11/17/90)
In article <1990Nov12.160511.25395@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> harier!sparkie@cs.wisc.edu writes: >In article <603@nih-csl.nih.gov> crtb@helix.nih.gov (Chuck Bacon) writes: >>I vote for comp.sys.unix-pc, or perhaps comp.sys.3b1 (shorter). >Currently in the unix-pc.* groups there is a lot of confusion with PC users >running things like Xenix. They think the group is a general discussion group >for PC unices. The name "comp.sys.3b1" would help eliminate that confusion. >I would recommend that we do something like the current unix-pc.* groups: > comp.sys.3b1.general > comp.sys.3b1.sources > comp.sys.3b1.uucp >It seems to me that these are reasonable groups to have, although the latter >two do not seem to get that much usage. Perhaps just comp.sys.3b1 would be >adequate. > I visit news.groups occasionally, and have a copy of the current mainstream newsgroup creation guidelines. I would be willing to shepherd the group(s) through the tortuous path of newsgroup creation. I have a well-connected site, and would be willing to collect the votes. Before I do this, I want to make sure that we are pretty much in agreement about what we want to do. It seems that there are a lot of people in favor of this, but there are a number of people who have not been heard from. What I would like to do is hold a "straw poll", an initial vote to see if there is a enough support to pass a mainstream group. The list of groups above looks reasonable. Just send me a simple "yes" or "no" message, preferable in the subject header - I'll count them by hand. I'll run this poll for the next two weeks, until the end of November. -- Mark H. Weber ( mhw@Schuylkill.Canal.Org ) "Schuylkill" (skool' kill) Mont Clare ( ...!uunet!cbmvax!cgh!lock60!mhw ) is a Dutch word meaning PA USA ( ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!lock60!mhw ) "hidden river"
vern@zebra.UUCP (Vernon C. Hoxie) (11/19/90)
In article <594@lock60.UUCP>, mhw@lock60.UUCP (Mark H. Weber) writes: > > I visit news.groups occasionally, and have a copy of the current mainstream > newsgroup creation guidelines. I would be willing to shepherd the group(s) > through the tortuous path of newsgroup creation. I have a well-connected > site, and would be willing to collect the votes. Last week dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US also offered to take a poll. I suggest you two combine your efforts and repeat your requests for a straw poll every other day or so for two weeks. Whoever does the counting, please be sure that you have my vote for comp.sys.3b1.general and comp.sys.3b1.sources. I fully believe that we will better serve the general populace of 7300/3b1 users by having these discussion groups in the mainstream distribution. I know the problems which John Ruckster went through to get connected in Colo. Springs and the troubles I went through before that. I am also aware that there are 7300/3b1 users who post only to the comp.sys.att group who apparently do not now get the unix-pc.* distribution. vern -- Vernon C. Hoxie {ncar,boulder,isis}!scicom!zebra!vern 3975 W. 29th Ave. voice: 303-477-1780 Denver, Colo., 80212 TB+ uucp: 303-455-2670
cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) (11/20/90)
In article <234@zebra.UUCP> vern@zebra.UUCP (Vernon C. Hoxie) writes: >In article <594@lock60.UUCP>, mhw@lock60.UUCP (Mark H. Weber) writes: >> >> I visit news.groups occasionally, and have a copy of the current mainstream >> newsgroup creation guidelines. I would be willing to shepherd the group(s) >> through the tortuous path of newsgroup creation. I have a well-connected >> site, and would be willing to collect the votes. > > Last week dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US also offered to take a >poll. I suggest you two combine your efforts and repeat your requests >for a straw poll every other day or so for two weeks. Well, I'm for it. And I think I represent a fairly significant, if mostly silent, community: people who don't have news on their unixpcs, but read it at work. It's pretty difficult to persuade a sysadmin to carry an obscure hierarchy if you're the only one who wants it. And, because of phone-line, diskspace, and financial limitations, I can't set up news on my own machine. Let me ask another question: Is there anyone out there who gets unix-pc.* but couldn't get comp.sys.3b1 if it was created? If not, it's clearly time to switch. Having a separate hierarchy for an obsolete, quasi-orphaned machine is killing mosquitoes with an H-bomb. -Curtis "I tried living in the real world Instead of a shell But I was bored before I even began." - The Smiths