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
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (09/05/90)
[ Followups to news.groups ] According to pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham): >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)? I don't think the newsgroup name will be a factor. After all, if people realize that comp.sources.unix isn't for proprietary UNIX[tm] source code, then they should also realize that c.u.internals will not be a vehicle for trade secret disclosure. According to jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II): >How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced >the name change really was a bad idea? As for people who think c.u.internals was a bad idea, well, the group passed its vote according to the guidelines. Anyone who thinks it should be renamed is free to run another vote. I should hope that administrators will carry c.u.internals in the meantime. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) (09/07/90)
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. Since I don't have a copy |of the non-disclosure agreements I signed with AT&T and IBM, I |think I too will have to bow out. are you saying that although you know that the group is intended to replace unix.wizards you won't post because the name changed? even though you could post before. this stuff about licenses is bogus. |This voting business is really beginning to look pretty silly. |What we really need is a good backbone cabal. right. -- pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (09/07/90)
In article <35064@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes: >are you saying that although you know that the group is intended to replace >unix.wizards you won't post because the name changed? even though you >could post before. this stuff about licenses is bogus. that's correct. the name "comp.unix.internals" is too suggestive of "unix internals". >|This voting business is really beginning to look pretty silly. >|What we really need is a good backbone cabal. > >right. yes. i am beginning to think someone needs to reintroduce the "net" and "mod" groups and get back to the usenet some of us used to know and love. i think the first group to create is "net.wizards". -- 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
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (09/11/90)
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. I didn't bother with the original vote as I thought the real UNIX wizards on the net could quite well look after themselves, and when the result came out I followed it like a good news admin should (though I hadn't removed c.u.wizards). But it now seems clear we've made a collective mistake. Quite apart from the legal arguement (which I don't buy - but I'm not a lawyer), the sort of things discussed in c.u.wizards cover far more than just 'internals'. In fact on my recent reading of the group there's very little about the internals of UNIX, if that means kernal stuff, and still under half if you include the file system etc. The only solution, I think, is another vote. Who will do a formal CALL? Pending the result, lets leave both groups in place, with no aliasing. BTW, I've cross-posted this to c.u.wizards. If you see it in c.u.internals its been aliased. Regards, "None shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity" David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW <or> /g=David/s=Wright/org=STC Technology Ltd/prmd=STC plc/admd=Gold 400/co=GB
wsinpdb@svin02.info.win.tue.nl (Paul de Bra) (09/11/90)
In article <3370@stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: >... Quite apart from the legal arguement (which I don't >buy - but I'm not a lawyer), the sort of things discussed in c.u.wizards >cover far more than just 'internals'. In fact on my recent reading of the >group there's very little about the internals of UNIX, if that means kernal >stuff, and still under half if you include the file system etc. The whole issue went right by me as well, mostly because I was on vacation. But judging from the level of postings in c.u.wizards, the name 'wizards' didn't seem very appropriate to me anyway. I disagree that c.u.wizards was not discussing unix internals. Unix is more than a kernel and a file system. There are many questions about shell programming, awk, C, and other Unix goodies. Given a system not running a Unix kernel (Mach for instance) but with all Unix utilities, I would still perceive that as a Unix system. However, take the shell (or other major utilities) away from a real Unix system, and I would no longer perceive it as a Unix system. c.u.wizards was and c.u.internals is about the internals of the whole Unix system, which is not just the kernel, but also the standard utilities. Anyway, c.u.wizards or c.u.internals is not for discussions of c.u.wizards versus c.u.internals. Can we please go back to discussing Unix, PLEASE??? Paul. (debra@research.att.com)
sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) (09/12/90)
In article <3370@stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: }#How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced }#the name change really was a bad idea? }Count me for one. I didn't bother with the original vote as I thought the }The only solution, I think, is another vote. Who will do a formal CALL? }Pending the result, lets leave both groups in place, with no aliasing. Until another vote is called on this subject van-bc will carry comp.unix.internals without removing or aliasing comp.unix.wizards. -- Stuart Lynne Unifax Communications Inc. ...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) sl@wimsey.bc.ca
tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) (09/13/90)
In message <1857@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca>, sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes: > > Until another vote is called on this subject van-bc will carry > comp.unix.internals without removing or aliasing comp.unix.wizards. That's just what I'm doing here. Maybe because of the harsh lessons from the climate up here, we Canadians have learned not to tear down bridges until the new ones are proven. I think the smart thing to do at this time is to undo the c.u.w rmgroup and let this thing ride for the rest of the year. It's just possible that the new c.u.* groups will soak up much of the stuff that was overloading c.u.w. Internals is a valid but separate topic from wizards anyway. Can't I be a unix wizard on an externals topic? On the other hand, we could try c.u.necromancer ;-). -- Yours etc., Tony Olekshy. Internet: tony%oha@CS.UAlberta.CA BITNET: tony%oha.uucp@UALTAMTS.BITNET uucp: alberta!oha!tony
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (09/13/90)
In article <1857@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca> sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes: |In article <3370@stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: |}#How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced |}#the name change really was a bad idea? | |}Count me for one. I didn't bother with the original vote as I thought the | |}The only solution, I think, is another vote. Who will do a formal CALL? |}Pending the result, lets leave both groups in place, with no aliasing. | |Until another vote is called on this subject van-bc will carry |comp.unix.internals without removing or aliasing comp.unix.wizards. System becker, on the other hand, will alias comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.internals. Since this is a B news site, outgoing articles will all be sent as newsgroup comp.unix.internals. If another vote revises this requirement, then so be it... Cheers, -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "I still have my phil-os-o-phy" - Meredith Monk
del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) (09/14/90)
In article <450@oha.UUCP> tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) writes: >I think the smart thing to do at this time is to undo the c.u.w rmgroup and >let this thing ride for the rest of the year. It's just possible that the >new c.u.* groups will soak up much of the stuff that was overloading c.u.w. >Internals is a valid but separate topic from wizards anyway. Can't I be >a unix wizard on an externals topic? I've been thinking about unaliasing c.u.wizards here. It seems to me that c.u.wizards - (c.u.admin + c.u.internals + c.u.programmer) is probably just noise, so I could unsubscribe to c.u.wizards and increase the signal to noise ratio of what I read. -- Don "Truck" Lewis Harris Semiconductor Internet: del@mlb.semi.harris.com PO Box 883 MS 62A-028 Phone: (407) 729-5205 Melbourne, FL 32901
ted@stb.info.com (Theodore Thomas Garrett) (09/14/90)
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. I didn't bother with the original vote as I thought the >real UNIX wizards on the net could quite well look after themselves, and >when the result came out I followed it like a good news admin should >(though I hadn't removed c.u.wizards). But it now seems clear we've made >a collective mistake. Quite apart from the legal arguement (which I don't >buy - but I'm not a lawyer), the sort of things discussed in c.u.wizards >cover far more than just 'internals'. In fact on my recent reading of the >group there's very little about the internals of UNIX, if that means kernal >stuff, and still under half if you include the file system etc. > >The only solution, I think, is another vote. Who will do a formal CALL? >Pending the result, lets leave both groups in place, with no aliasing. If there need be a formal call for votes, I so issue it. c.u.w. needs to co-exist with, if not predispose of c.u.i. I hereby call for votes on re-instating comp.unix.wizards.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (09/15/90)
In article <1990Sep14.010840.26683@mlb.semi.harris.com> del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) writes: | I've been thinking about unaliasing c.u.wizards here. It seems to me | that c.u.wizards - (c.u.admin + c.u.internals + c.u.programmer) is probably | just noise, so I could unsubscribe to c.u.wizards and increase the | signal to noise ratio of what I read. The question is, is the alias installed on major sites like uunet? If they are doing the alias very little will get through. -- 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.
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