bruce@balilly.UUCP (Bruce Lilly) (12/29/90)
I realize that the vote for news.software.c failed a few months ago, but apparently some people are not aware of this. There have been a few postings in tha last week or so which imply this. One of the main arguments against news.software.c was the fear that many neophytes would think it to be a place for postings regarding the ``C'' language. So maybe we should consider news.software.cnews, which should overcome that objection. The only other objection I can recall was ``there's a lot of interaction between B news and Cnews, and we want to read about both.'' Well, if there are two newsgroups, one has the choice to read one (only), read the other (only), or read both. When there's only one group, as is currently the case, that choice is not available. And crossposting is always possible for articles which genuinely apply to both B news and C news. Anybody want to instigate a call for discussion? -- Bruce Lilly blilly!balilly!bruce@sonyd1.Broadcast.Sony.COM
palkovic@linac.fnal.gov (John A. Palkovic) (12/30/90)
In article <1990Dec29.142103.3886@blilly.UUCP> bruce@balilly.UUCP (Bruce Lilly) writes: >I realize that the vote for news.software.c failed a few months ago, but >apparently some people are not aware of this. There have been a few >postings in tha last week or so which imply this. >[...] >So maybe we should consider news.software.cnews, which should overcome >that objection. I think this is a great idea. The name news.software.b is confusing, given the content of this group. It is mostly about c news. >Anybody want to instigate a call for discussion? I think you just did. -- John Palkovic (708) 840-3527 | palkovic@linac.fnal.gov "A Superconductor generates electricity without resistance when cooled." - Chicago Tribune, Oct. 21, 1990, A-18
DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) (12/30/90)
Even if C-News isn't split from B-news, I'd like to see news reader
discussion (rn and trn, in particular) moved into a separate newsgroup,
just like nn was. Let's separate the transport software from the reading
software.
--
Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, doug@ysub.bitnet
Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555 doug@ysub.ysu.edu
"[A computer is] like an Old Testament god, with a lot of rules and no mercy."
Joseph Campbelledhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (12/31/90)
In article <1990Dec29.142103.3886@blilly.UUCP> bruce@balilly.UUCP (Bruce Lilly) writes: >I realize that the vote for news.software.c failed a few months ago, but >apparently some people are not aware of this. There have been a few >postings in tha last week or so which imply this. > >One of the main arguments against news.software.c was the fear that many >neophytes would think it to be a place for postings regarding the ``C'' >language. > >So maybe we should consider news.software.cnews, which should overcome >that objection. a/ news.software.cnews is sufficiently simple and explicit to be considered a Good Thing (TM). b/ much as I don't like the concept of newsgroup proliferation it seems like it's time for this one. I suspect that after the "waiting period" elapses, the proposal will get more support than last time. Personally I have no problem with a discussion period now and a vote when the time is appropriate, although the net.gods might deem it appropriate to intervene. Does anyone know how far off "6 months" is? -- Ed. A. Hew <edhew@xenitec.on.ca>, XeniTec Consulting Services or if you're really stuck: ..!{watmath|lsuc}!xenitec!eah
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (01/01/91)
In article <1990Dec31.082711.6700@xenitec.on.ca> edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) writes: | I suspect that after the "waiting period" elapses, the proposal | will get more support than last time. Personally I have no | problem with a discussion period now and a vote when the time | is appropriate, although the net.gods might deem it appropriate | to intervene. Does anyone know how far off "6 months" is? Since this is a diferent name, and that was a good part of the objection, I think you can call it a new group and discuss now. That's certainly within the spirit of the guidelines (my opinion), you're not bringing the same thing up again, there's a major change. I would really like to see this happen so the people running B news, possibly a majority of the net, could have their group back. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.
dewey@sequoia.execu.com (Dewey Henize) (01/01/91)
In article <3087@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: ] ] Since this is a diferent name, and that was a good part of the ]objection, I think you can call it a new group and discuss now. That's ]certainly within the spirit of the guidelines (my opinion), you're not ]bringing the same thing up again, there's a major change. ] ]bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) My feelings exactly. The name was a major factor, I believe, and with the use of .cnews instead of .c, there should be little objection. There's most certainly enough traffic to warrant the group, and it might even make some of the Q/A more meaningful in context (nah, couldn't happen). Anyone opposing the vote being called? Dew -- | Execucom and I often have different ideas. THESE are mine, ok? Ok. | | dewey@execu.com or uunet!sequoia!dewey | |Don't reword the question into such generality that it appears absurd, that's| |a puerile trick. -Barry Shein | But this IS Usenet!! - me |
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (01/01/91)
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes: > Since this is a different name, and that was a good part of the >objection, I think you can call it a new group and discuss now. That's >certainly within the spirit of the guidelines (my opinion), you're not >bringing the same thing up again, there's a major change. > I would really like to see this happen so the people running B news, >possibly a majority of the net, could have their group back. Were you to let the issue sit for the requisite six months, you wouldn't have to wait a very long time. The call for votes was issued by Kyle Jones on June 27, 1990 (posted June 29); the results were submitted on July 23 (posted July 28). The vote failed 118 yes - 90 no. Before that, there was a vote in January taken by J.T. Conklin (jtc@winsey.bc.ca) that failed for news.software.misc. Before that I seem to recall an attempt by Bill Wisner to get news.software.c created (though I don't have records for that period of time). The community seems to have spoken again and again on this issue. If you are going to do this again, please make certain that at the very least you have the support of Henry and Geoff. For better or worse, their opinion seemed to have carried a lot of weight. Perhaps what we should have (after figuring out how to rename groups without pissing off the world) is news.software.transport and news.software.readers. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
geoff@zoo.toronto.edu (Geoffrey Collyer) (01/01/91)
Dewey Henize: >The name was a major factor, I believe, and with the >use of .cnews instead of .c, there should be little objection. Henry and I regard the spelling "cnews" as incorrect ("C News" is two words; "C" is the version of the software), and it appears to be based solely on the unfortunate historical accident of the filename "cnews.Z", which has since been corrected to "c-news.Z" (the old one still works, but is deprecated). If this is actually going to go to a vote, I request that the name proposed be "news.software.c-news". (Better yet would be something generic like "news.software.transport", but I think we've been over that ground before.) -- Geoff Collyer utzoo!geoff, zoo.toronto.edu!geoff
gary@proa.sv.dg.com (Gary Bridgewater) (01/01/91)
In article <1990Dec31.232653.1671@zoo.toronto.edu> geoff@zoo.toronto.edu (Geoffrey Collyer) writes: >Dewey Henize: >>The name was a major factor, I believe, and with the >>use of .cnews instead of .c, there should be little objection. > >... If this is actually going to go to a >vote, I request that the name proposed be "news.software.c-news". >(Better yet would be something generic like "news.software.transport", >but I think we've been over that ground before.) For the record, I still think the C News and B News users have a need to be in touch with each other. Certainly B News has been enriched by the C News innovations some of which have been adopted, piecemeal, by otherwise solid B News sites. There have also been occasions when the behavior (or misbehavior) of one has had an effect on the other and in that case both kinds of admins need to be aware. If the name continues to be the problem (as it does elsewhere to a mystifying degree) then news.software.transport should be an acceptable alternative. We may even persuade news.software.nntp to merge. We are all in the business of shoveling ever larger amounts of this stuff through our systems. I don't see how fragmenting the group that manages that on the basis of what software they are running will make anything better. At best, some number of admins might be able to avoid reading a few messages that their KILL file misses. Is it really worth it? -- Gary Bridgewater, Data General Corporation, Sunnyvale California gary@sv.dg.com or {amdahl,aeras,amdcad}!dgcad!gary C++ - it's the right thing to do.
ed@dah.sub.org (Ed Braaten) (01/01/91)
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: >The community seems to have spoken again and again on this issue. If >you are going to do this again, please make certain that at the very >least you have the support of Henry and Geoff. For better or worse, >their opinion seemed to have carried a lot of weight. Perhaps what we >should have (after figuring out how to rename groups without pissing >off the world) is news.software.transport and news.software.readers. I second the notion of news.software.transport/readers. That would reduce the number of groups and eliminate the need for a new group everytime a new package comes along. [Follow-Up's directed to news.groups] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Braaten | "... Man looks at the outward appearance, Work: ed@de.intel.com | but the Lord looks at the heart." Home: ed@dah.sub.org | 1 Samuel 16:7b --------------------------------------------------------------------
darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (01/02/91)
In article <Dec.31.14.53.28.1990.18673@turbo.bio.net> Eliot writes: > Perhaps what we >should have (after figuring out how to rename groups without pissing >off the world) is news.software.transport and news.software.readers. Just a small nit, why not news.transport and news.readers? The "software" part seems to be an unneccessary redundancy. I mean, can transport agents or news readers be implemented any other way? -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | D'Arcy Cain Consulting | There's no government West Hill, Ontario, Canada | like no government! +1 416 281 6094 |
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (01/02/91)
In article <1990Dec31.232653.1671@zoo.toronto.edu> geoff@zoo.toronto.edu (Geoffrey Collyer) writes: >Henry and I regard the spelling "cnews" as incorrect ("C News" is two >words; "C" is the version of the software), and it appears to be based >solely on the unfortunate historical accident of the filename >"cnews.Z", which has since been corrected to "c-news.Z" ... Actually, Geoff and I hold somewhat differing opinions about the best way of removing the space from "C News"; my enthusiasm for the hyphen is lukewarm at best, and "cnews.Z" wasn't an accident. However, I don't feel strongly enough about the whole issue to fight about it. I do think I'd prefer to see "news.software.transport". -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (01/02/91)
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > Actually, Geoff and I hold somewhat differing opinions about the best way > of removing the space from "C News"; my enthusiasm for the hyphen is > lukewarm at best, and "cnews.Z" wasn't an accident. Just think how much less hassle you would now have in your life if you'd have left the space in, and called it "C News.Z" :-) > I do think I'd prefer to see "news.software.transport". But if we did that, we'd lose you from the news reader discussions :-) More seriously though, I think the strongest reason for a re-organisation would be to stem the regular "why ain't there a news.software.c" whinges. I don't think there's a strong enough reason not to leave well alone. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" Re-organisations are painful things. The news.software heirarchy is working comparatively well as it is. The comp.unix heirarchy is much worse now than before the revolution. I'd like to see the present relative tranquility continue in news.software, please. Thank you, and Happy New Year. -- ronald@robobar.co.uk +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)
tim@delluk.uucp (Tim Wright) (01/03/91)
In <Dec.31.14.53.28.1990.18673@turbo.bio.net> lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: >Perhaps what we >should have (after figuring out how to rename groups without pissing >off the world) is news.software.transport and news.software.readers. >-- >Eliot Lear That would seem to be the most sensible way of dividing it. Anybody else think so ? Tim -- Tim Wright, Dell Computer Corp. (UK) | Email address Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 1RW | Domain: tim@dell.co.uk Tel: +44-344-860456 | Uucp: ...!ukc!delluk!tim "What's the problem? You've got an IQ of six thousand, haven't you?"
richard@locus.com (Richard M. Mathews) (01/04/91)
tim@delluk.uucp (Tim Wright) writes: >lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: >>Perhaps what we >>should have (after figuring out how to rename groups without pissing >>off the world) is news.software.transport and news.software.readers. >That would seem to be the most sensible way of dividing it. Anybody else >think so ? Aren't there really 3 levels of software: 1. Software to handle communications protocols, such as nntp. This is what I think of as "transport". 2. Spoolers such as B News and C News which receive incoming articles, determine where to send articles (without actually sending them), store articles, expire articles, and insert new articles into the stream. 3. Human interfaces, which include stuff for reading, posting, manipulating, and monitoring news. By "manipulating, I mean stuff like newsetup, nngoback, and nntidy. By "monitoring" I mean stuff like nnstats and nnusage. There is a lot more here than "readers". (I'm cheating a little since 2 of the 5 programs I listed are links to "nn" itself.) I'm not sure what I would call these 3 groups. Perhaps n.s.transport, n.s.spoolers, and n.s.readers, but I don't think any of those names are really great. Richard M. Mathews D efend richard@locus.com E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian lcc!richard@seas.ucla.edu I ndependence ...!{uunet|ucla-se|turnkey}!lcc!richard
edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (01/07/91)
In article <tim.662896773@holly> tim@delluk.uucp (Tim Wright) writes: >In <Dec.31.14.53.28.1990.18673@turbo.bio.net> lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: > >>Perhaps what we >>should have (after figuring out how to rename groups without pissing >>off the world) is news.software.transport and news.software.readers. >>-- >>Eliot Lear > >That would seem to be the most sensible way of dividing it. Anybody else >think so ? >Tim Wright, Dell Computer Corp. (UK) | Email address >Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 1RW | Domain: tim@dell.co.uk It might be sensible, but treads on a restructuring of the news.software sub-hierarchy. Somehow I don't think we're really ready for that and wonder how many would really be interested in a complete restructuring vrs a simple split. As I understood it, the intention of the original posting was to simply provide a discrete discussion area for c-news users vrs bnews users. While some have stated that bnews problems are of interest to c-news sites, I don't really believe that. Discussions of what's broken in bnews just don't concern me. I'm similarily of the opinion that bnews admins aren't too interested in the c-news patches and discussions that I _do_ want to see without having to wade through (what to me is) irrelevent traffic. IMHO there is now sufficient volume on both topics to support a split. Please note that I'm redirecting this discussion to news.groups -- Ed. A. Hew <edhew@xenitec.on.ca>, XeniTec Consulting Services or if you're really stuck: ..!{watmath|lsuc}!xenitec!eah
kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) (01/13/91)
(Gee, I never thought I'd find myself responding to another "darcy" to whom I wasn't related :-) In article <1991Jan1.180100.29798@druid.uucp> darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes: >In article <Dec.31.14.53.28.1990.18673@turbo.bio.net> Eliot writes: >> Perhaps what we >>should have (after figuring out how to rename groups without pissing >>off the world) is news.software.transport and news.software.readers. > >Just a small nit, why not news.transport and news.readers? The "software" >part seems to be an unneccessary redundancy. I mean, can transport agents >or news readers be implemented any other way? Ah, but you're presuming a certain meaning of "implementation" which isn't reflected in the newsgroup names. "News.transport" could conceivably include discussions of modems, LANs, where to get a feed, etc. "News.readers" could conceivably include hand-holding information on how to set up a KILL file, personal observations about people who read news, etc. The "software" sub-hierarchy focusses the discussions more to topics admins and developers want to see, and IMHO, speaking as an admin and occasional developer (when things break, usually :-), that's a Good Thing. Although they do require more typing/directories/disk-space/whatnot-and-wherewithal, sub-hierarchies often have a useful purpose. I think "news.software" is no exception. Viva news.software.transport! Viva news.software.readers! (Although of course C news & trn are the only ones worth a damn :-) >D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | >D'Arcy Cain Consulting | There's no government >West Hill, Ontario, Canada | like no government! >+1 416 281 6094 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kevin@cfctech.cfc.com | Kevin Darcy, Unix Systems Administrator ...{sharkey,rphroy}!cfctech!kevin | Technical Services (CFC) Voice: (313) 948-4863 | Chrysler Corporation Fax: (313) 948-4975 | 27777 Franklin, Southfield, MI 48034 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------