tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) (02/04/91)
From the keyboard of tsang@june.cs.washington.edu (Donald Tsang): :ewoods@hemel.bull.co.uk (Eoin Woods) writes: :>leech@cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes: :>> I propose the creation of comp.editors.vi. This would serve to :>>help separate the large amount of vi-specific questions and discussion :>>(which is currently taking place in comp.editors) from more general :>>editing material and discussions of non-vi, non-emacs editors (which :>>often draw religious flamage from vi users). The group would be :>>unmoderated. As though the flames were unilateral; they're not. And they haven't been very bad lately. :Just because eight hundred people ask "what does ':1,$s/^I/>/g' mean?" :doesn't quite justify the creation of a new newsgroup... look at some :of the "split/don't split" discussions that went on in, say, :rec.games.frp... : :Oh yeah, we should also have a talk.politics.emacs-vs-vi group, no? :) I don't think it's worth having a separate newsgroup. We're way too quick to ask for yet-another-little-newsgroup on USENET. It's diluted enough as it is. If you can't handle vi in the subject line, use a killfile. No one's stopping anyone from posting anything. Competition is good for the soul: I like seeing solutions and problems posted for other editors. If each editor has its own group, this would be lost. It's like making comp.unix.shell.{csh,ksh,sh,rc,tcsh,...}. Now wouldn't that be silly? --tom -- "Still waiting to read alt.fan.dan-bernstein using DBWM, Dan's own AI window manager, which argues with you 10 weeks before resizing your window." ### And now for the question of the month: How do you spell relief? Answer: U=brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu; echo "/From: $U/h:j" >>~/News/KILL; expire -f $U
larry@tessi.UUCP (Larry Gillespie) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb04.133513.917@convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes: >[...DELETED...] >If each editor has its own group, this would be lost. It's like making >comp.unix.shell.{csh,ksh,sh,rc,tcsh,...}. Now wouldn't that be silly? Makes perfect sense to me, as long as comp.unix.shell doesn't go away. Articles which are not shell-specific would still fall in that newsgroup, and presumably those which did get onto a topic specific to one shell would end up being followed-up to that appropriate newsgroup. The same goes for discussions of editors. Now, there are really only a few editors that are used enough by the Unix community that they would need their own newsgroup. Vi and Emacs obviously are two of those (maybe the only two?). The net is improved through the classification of articles, IMHO, as long as the generalized article is also easily found. -- -Larry Gillespie Test Systems Strategies, Inc., 8205 SW Creekside Pl., Beaverton, Ore. 97005 (503) 643-9281 tessi!larry@uunet.UU.NET -or- sun!nosun!tessi!larry