ejb@godot.think.com.UUCP (01/16/87)
This isn't funny. For the *second* time, net.sources just got
rmgroup'ed here. *WHY*??? It was rm'ed a while ago, then revived.
Since then, a LOT of traffic has come through it - 10 or more articles
a day. Then, today when I run rn, it says net.sources is a bogus
newsgroup. THIS MAKES NO SENSE!!! comp.sources.unix was never born,
and as we all know, mod.sources is less than active. So, what are
we gonna do???
Personally, I would like to see comp.sources.unix and comp.sources.games
created. net.sources/net.sources.games/net.sources.bugs are (were?)
the ONLY net.* groups in my .newsrc... The switchover will not be
complete until we get rid of them. SO WHY WAIT???
I'd like to also put a word in for comp.sources.pc (perhaps
comp.sources.micro, with several sublevels: pc, mac, etc.). I know
no one (save PC users) likes PC code coming over net.sources, and
whenever a big post is made to comp.sys.ibm.pc, it sometimes gets flamed:
"This is not a {source/binary} newsgroup!!!" Not a happy state of
affairs.
Other than these gripes, I'm pleased that the net reorganization went
so well. In general I like the new names (with the exception of the
"ibm.pc" rather than "ibmpc" (why create a null directory "ibm", with
only "pc" under it?)).
Cheers. --Erik
Erik Bailey -- 7 Oak Knoll (USENET courtesy of
ihnp4!think!ejb Arlington, MA 02174 Thinking Machines Corp.,
ejb@think.com (617) 643-0732 Cambridge, MA)vedm@hoqam.UUCP (01/19/87)
> > This isn't funny. For the *second* time, net.sources just got > rmgroup'ed here. *WHY*??? It was rm'ed a while ago, then revived. > Since then, a LOT of traffic has come through it - 10 or more articles > a day. Then, today when I run rn, it says net.sources is a bogus > newsgroup. THIS MAKES NO SENSE!!! comp.sources.unix was never born, > and as we all know, mod.sources is less than active. So, what are > we gonna do??? > > Personally, I would like to see comp.sources.unix and comp.sources.games > created. net.sources/net.sources.games/net.sources.bugs are (were?) > the ONLY net.* groups in my .newsrc... The switchover will not be > complete until we get rid of them. SO WHY WAIT??? > > Cheers. --Erik I agree that net.sources should be REPLACED not continually newgroup'd and rmgroup'd. What exactly is the holdup? Why has this group been omitted from the reorg? Tom. ...!{decvax | ucbvax}!ihnp4!hoqax!twb
mac@esl.UUCP (Mike McNamara) (01/22/87)
A possible reason for you seeing rmgroups for net.sources is that you are running vanilla 2.11 News. There is a bug where the checkgroups message ignores the first newsgroup in the valid list, which is, you guessed it, net.sources. -- Michael Mc Namara ESL Incorporated ARPA: mac%esl@lll-lcc.ARPA
lfr@rayssd.UUCP (01/28/87)
In article <388@esl.UUCP>, mac@esl.UUCP (Mike McNamara) writes: > > A possible reason for you seeing rmgroups for net.sources is that > you are running vanilla 2.11 News. There is a bug where the > checkgroups message ignores the first newsgroup in the valid list, > which is, you guessed it, net.sources. > > -- For those of us that are suffering with "vanilla" news, couldn't dummy group be started so it's the first newsgroup. I don't really have any control over which news I am using. At least I don't think that I do. Larry