brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (10/04/90)
In article <1990Oct03.021535.2030@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes: > In article <10833:Oct221:07:0590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > >Whatever the fate of unix-wizards, I'd like to see two new groups: > > comp.unix.futures The future of UNIX and of its derivatives > > comp.unix.kernel Current UNIX kernel discussions > Aren't there enough comp.unix.* groups for now? There are so many of > them that it is probably real confusing about where to post a question. You're absolutely right. There should never be a general group (except perhaps .misc to handle spillover) when more specific groups are available. The current comp.unix hierarchy disobeys this rule. That's why it's so confusing. I kept that other proposal to noncontroversial groups. Now here's what I'd really like to see happen: newgroup comp.unix.futures newgroup comp.unix.kernel rmgroup comp.unix forget comp.unix.questions, more specific groups are now available alias comp.unix.questions to comp.unix.misc gateway info-unix to comp.unix.misc forget comp.unix.wizards, more specific groups are now available alias comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.programmer, not internals gateway unix-wizards to comp.unix.programmer rmgroup comp.unix.internals, the name sucks eventually rmgroup comp.unix.questions eventually rmgroup comp.unix.wizards But inertia prevents such drastic changes from happening overnight. So I'll wait, let the confusion settle a bit, and see what can be done step by step. Anyone who wants to bring back ``the old unix-wizards'' should realize that the old unix-wizards has been dead for a few years. The group has been a mishmash of discussions, mostly like comp.unix.programmer, some like comp.unix.kernel/shell/futures. To revive the past you must start from a clean slate. > Let's leave well enough alone for at least a few months. I was proposing to wait for Chip's latest vote to finish, which'll be another couple of months at least. ---Dan
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (10/04/90)
In article <21619:Oct321:09:0990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: | You're absolutely right. There should never be a general group (except | perhaps .misc to handle spillover) when more specific groups are | available. The current comp.unix hierarchy disobeys this rule. That's | why it's so confusing. If you think that's why it's confusing, you're confused. But I agree that the group should go. The reorganization provided the misc group, let's clean up the remnants. [ ... lots of stuff, most of which I don't accept ... ] | Anyone who wants to bring back ``the old unix-wizards'' should realize | that the old unix-wizards has been dead for a few years. The group has | been a mishmash of discussions, mostly like comp.unix.programmer, some | like comp.unix.kernel/shell/futures. To revive the past you must start | from a clean slate. Thank you for saying it. wizards was going downhill since the last renaming (remember net and mod, folks?) and with the renaming and addition of a group particularly for kernel stuff, perhaps we could discuss unix instead of news groups. -- 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.
paul@unhtel.uucp (Paul S. Sawyer) (10/05/90)
In article <21619:Oct321:09:0990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > >You're absolutely right. There should never be a general group (except >perhaps .misc to handle spillover) when more specific groups are >available. The current comp.unix hierarchy disobeys this rule. That's >why it's so confusing. Agreed. >I kept that other proposal to noncontroversial groups. Now here's what >I'd really like to see happen: > > newgroup comp.unix.futures > newgroup comp.unix.kernel > rmgroup comp.unix > > forget comp.unix.questions, more specific groups are now available > alias comp.unix.questions to comp.unix.misc > gateway info-unix to comp.unix.misc OK. > forget comp.unix.wizards, more specific groups are now available NO!!! This is just why .wizards should come back. > ... > rmgroup comp.unix.internals, the name sucks AGREED!!! > eventually rmgroup comp.unix.questions Maybe. > eventually rmgroup comp.unix.wizards NEVER! (when you pry my cold dead hands from the terminal B-) >But inertia prevents such drastic changes from happening overnight. So >I'll wait, let the confusion settle a bit, and see what can be done step >by step. > >Anyone who wants to bring back ``the old unix-wizards'' should realize >that the old unix-wizards has been dead for a few years. The group has >been a mishmash of discussions, mostly like comp.unix.programmer, some >like comp.unix.kernel/shell/futures. To revive the past you must start >from a clean slate. So let's make it "alive" with the discussions on traditions, foods, and all the other arcana (NO, not comp.unix.arcana! B-) that make UNIX more than just "A Registered Trade Mark of [current AT&T mutation]", now that there ARE newsgroups for the more "serious" stuff! Why not? -- Paul S. Sawyer uunet!unh!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.UUCP UNH Telecommunications attmail!psawyer p_sawyer@UNHH.BITNET Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: +1 603 862 3262 FAX: +1 603 862 2030