baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Steven L. Baur) (10/29/89)
In a recent posting mesard@BBN.COM (Wayne Mesard) said: |sf1@rosemary.cs.reading.ac.uk (Fruitbat) writes: |>Is there any way to sort out the GNU and other emacs articles? |>I'm fed up of wading through lots of GNU articles all the time. |> |>Isn't there a gnu-emacs newsgroup? I thought there was. | |Indeed. I have just the opposite problem. I'm only interested in GNU |articles here. My KILL file gets most of the irrelevant ones: | | /uEmacs/:j | /microEMACS/:j | /jove/:j O.K. We've heard several sides. I personally care about only GNU emacs, and I don't mind cross posting with the GNU hierarchy because I remember what it was like before our site received it. If you don't like the way things are, then here's your chance to do something about it. I am conducting an opinion poll that will last until midnight November 11. 1) Are you interested in splitting up comp.emacs? (Yes/No) If yes, include how you would split it up *and* what group names there should be. 2) What do you read out of comp.emacs (ie. what emacs are you interested in?) For example, I read all the jove and GNU emacs articles but could care less about the rest. If there is sufficient interest, then we take this discussion to news.groups and do something about it. -- steve baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM
mike@system.Cambridge.NCR.COM (mike) (10/30/89)
In article <117@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Steven L. Baur) writes: > >O.K. We've heard several sides. I personally care about only GNU emacs, >and I don't mind cross posting with the GNU hierarchy because I remember >what it was like before our site received it. If you don't like the way >things are, then here's your chance to do something about it. > >I am conducting an opinion poll that will last until midnight November >11. > >1) Are you interested in splitting up comp.emacs? (Yes/No) > If yes, include how you would split it up *and* what group names > there should be. no ! No !! NO !!! Please Don't split this stuff up. I used to read all of the emacs groups but it was too much !!! I use mg, GNUemacs, and microemacs on several different machines at various times. This group covers enough of everything so that I can keep informed. On a related note, my mg is rather old ... can someone send me the latest. I have mg2a and today IN THIS GROUP saw someone metion mg3a. thanks mike
mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) (10/31/89)
mike@system.Cambridge.NCR.COM () writes: >no ! No !! NO !!! Please Don't split this stuff up. I used to read all of >the emacs groups but it was too much !!! I use mg, GNUemacs, and microemacs >on several different machines at various times. This group covers enough >of everything so that I can keep informed. Presumably, splitting off a GNU group wouldn't increase the traffic; it would merely organize it better. So whassaproblem? Someone else mentioned that comp.editors would be a better place for these groups, anyway. As we all know GNU Emacs is much more than an editor :-), but for the sake of clarity, I support this idea. Wayne(); -- unsigned *Wayne_Mesard(); "Being confused is like being Mesard@BBN.COM depressed, but you get to listen BBN, Cambridge, MA to better music."
bergman@m2c.m2c.org (Michael Bergman) (10/31/89)
All right. I use GNUemacs, have an interest in uemacs, and only occasionally see something else that interests me. But its easy enough for me to pick out what I want from the headers. I see no reason to split the group. -- --mike bergman Massachusetts Microelectronics Center 75 North Drive, Westborough, MA 01581, USA +1 (508) 870-0312 UUCP: harvard!m2c!bergman INTERNET: bergman@m2c.org