pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) (09/04/90)
Based upon the mishmash arriving at my site some peope are aliasing comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.internals. All well and good. My question: is anyone doing the opposite? Also, is anyone concerned that others will refuse to use c.u.i because they find it inappropriate (or believe that their unix source license prohibits them from posting to a group called c.u.i)? -- pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (09/04/90)
In article <34639@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes: >Based upon the mishmash arriving at my site some peope are aliasing >comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.internals. All well and good. My >question: is anyone doing the opposite? Also, is anyone concerned that >others will refuse to use c.u.i because they find it inappropriate (or >believe that their unix source license prohibits them from posting to a >group called c.u.i)? How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced the name change really was a bad idea? -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
ables@lot.ACA.MCC.COM (King Ables) (09/07/90)
I see the point that Doug and John have made concerning the name of the group. But I fail to see anything but a sematics problem here. If someone were to write a message containing information that violated their license agreement, does it really matter whether they post it to comp.unix.internals or rec.arts.disney? No! The violation comes in discussing the information, not which group it's discussed in. Conversely, posting a message containing no sensitive information to c.u.internals violates NOTHING. Now I'm sure Doug's point is that in a group *called* c.u.internals, there is much more potential for someone to get bent out of shape if he actively participates. Fair enough. And probably good reason to consider leaving the name as c.u.wizards so it attracts less attention... we all still know what it means. But as for the contents of postings, I'm sure Doug didn't post anything that violated his license agreement in c.u.wizards just as he wouldn't in c.u.internals. So how is it different? Presumably people who refuse to participate in c.u.internals weren't participating in internals threads in c.u.wizards anyway, for the same reasons. Saying one "can't" take part in a group because of the name of the group is incorrect. Saying one CHOOSES NOT to participate for fear of being accused of doing something incorrect because the accuser make an assumption based only on the name of the group is another matter. This is sad for all concerned (the person who no longer participates as well as the rest of us for losing their insight), but at least it's a fair reason. Of course, if everyone restricts themselves properly, this may turn out to be a pretty boring newsgroup and get rmgrouped, then we wouldn't have a problem. ;-) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- King Ables Micro Electronics and Computer Technology Corp. ables@mcc.com 3500 W. Balcones Center Drive +1 512 338 3749 Austin, TX 78759 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) (09/07/90)
In <BARNETT.90Sep6125844@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) writes: > >In article <18533@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > >> Well, I'm tending to agree with Doug Gwyn. Doug's statement was >> that he wouldn't be able to discuss UNIX internals because his >> license prohibited him from doing so. > >What does the NAME of the newsgroup have to do with anything? > >As I understand it, John and Doug can post Unix(TM) articles in a >newsgroup called comp.unix.spam, but can't legally post a SPAM recipe >to comp.unix.internals? > >No-one said people are *required* to discuss proprietary info in >c.u.i. If your license prevents you from doing so, then don't post >anything proprietary. Hasn't this always been the case? > >Am I missing something here? No, Bruce, you aren't missing anything, except perhaps the view of the pouting faces of Doug Gwyn and John Haugh, III. They are (apparently) quite miffed that "their" newsgroup was renamed under their noses. I, too, am not happy that c.u.wizards is no longer an official newsgroup, but I voted against the name change and lost, fair and square. Like a good net.citizen (one of the few, it seems) I actually read news.group and evaluate the discussions. Like, D.G. and JFH3, I also have signed various license and non-disclosure agreements in my varied positions and situations, and reviewing the texts, it is clear that there is not terribly much of my unix knowledge that I cannot share with the world. There are lots of certain application specific things that I still feel honor-bound to not reveal (even though certain time limits have expired and some of the information has been published in some obscure tech journals), but the most wizardly things that I am likely to discuss here are publicly available in a variety of forms. It is just possible that some people are frightened by the posturings and quibblings of various lawyers (net and real) and have been advised to limit their participation, but I can't really see them not stating that up front. No, the only thing preventing them from continuing to discuss whatever they were discussing before the group was renamed is a lot of ego. Its too bad that some of the most erudite contributors to c.u.wizards are going to let their inflated sense of self-importance lead them to think that they can abridge the consensus to the net by picking up their ball and going home. It looks more like they are going out into the yard to eat "worms". -- Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply>
jay@silence.princeton.nj.us (Jay Plett) (09/07/90)
In article <1990Sep7.010347.24458@wolves.uucp>, ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: > No, the only thing preventing them from continuing to discuss whatever > they were discussing before the group was renamed is a lot of ego. Its > too bad that some of the most erudite contributors to c.u.wizards are > going to let their inflated sense of self-importance lead them to think > that they can abridge the consensus to the net by picking up their ball > and going home. It looks more like they are going out into the yard to > eat "worms". Easy, now. Of at least one of the two people you are talking about, it can be said that he is irascible, rude, inconsiderate and egotistical, as evidenced by many of his postings. But it must also be acknowledged that his contribution to this newsgroup--not to mention his contribution to Unix--is formidable. Were he to never post again, the loser would be this noosegroup and its readers, not him. ...jay
jackv@turnkey.tcc.com (Jack F. Vogel) (09/10/90)
In article <18539@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >In article <26E7C052.73E@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>If anyone objects strongly to a bending of the guidelines here, please >>let yourself be heard. I don't want this group's propagation to be >>fragmented because of administrator resentment. I'm listening. >... the name "comp.unix.wizards". it has such a nice >ring to it. I don't know, given that most of what I've seen in this group in the last couple of days have been 20 to 30 repetitive followups on how to recover the root password, not only is "wizards" not the word that comes to mind, but "internals" seems equally inappropriate. How about comp.unix.metoo :-}! Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine not my employer's. -- Jack F. Vogel jackv@locus.com AIX370 Technical Support - or - Locus Computing Corp. jackv@turnkey.TCC.COM
willr@ntpdvp1.UUCP (Will Raymond) (09/12/90)
> > > >This voting business is really beginning to look pretty silly. > >What we really need is a good backbone cabal. > I tend to agree also. > > A group which was created to allow experts to chit-chat > amongst themselves has now been re-structured with the > hidden agenda to try to turn them into free consultants. After seeing that the vote was announced in CAPS I can't see where I can't complain that I didn't see it ( oh...BTW,I didn't see it ) but it really doesn't matter. As a consumer/producer of the Usenet, I'll follow general economic principles and put my money where my mouth is and, exclusively, continue to peruse and respond to questions posted in WIZARDS. But, not to miss out on anything, I'll probabally due a weekly batch scan of internals. ******* Will Raymond - Northern Telecom NTP in RTP | | ~ ~ | | . O o . Work: ...uucp!rti!ntpdvp1!willr | .V. | Fun: ...uucp!cs.unc.edu!raymond ._ _. | U | I speak for myself.
luke@modus.sublink.ORG (Luciano Mannucci) (09/15/90)
In article <3370@stl.stc.co.uk>, dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: %In article <18530@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: %#In article <34639@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes: %#}Based upon the mishmash arriving at my site some peope are aliasing %#}comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.internals ... is anyone doing the opposite? %# %#How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced %#the name change really was a bad idea? % % Count me for one. And Me too! Disclaimer: My humble opinions may not reflect my computer's ones. luke. - -- _ _ __ Via Aleardo Aleardi, 12 - 20154 Milano (Italy) | | | _ _| (__ PHONE : +39 2 3315328 FAX: +39 2 3315778 | | |(_)(_||_|___) Srl E-MAIL: luke@modus.sublink.ORG ______________________________ Software & Services for Advertising & Marketing