brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (10/03/90)
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 I'd also like to see comp.unix removed, as it's now utterly redundant. To make Chip happy we shouldn't start any official discussion until the comp.unix.wizards debacle is over. Does the above agenda seem reasonable as the next step? ---Dan
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (10/03/90)
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >Whatever the fate of unix-wizards, I'd like to see two new groups: [...] >To make Chip happy we shouldn't start any official discussion until the >comp.unix.wizards debacle is over. This is another way of saying "until the heat death of the universe, or the demise of USENet, whichever comes last" (UtHDotUotDoUWCL). Either: 1) comp.unix.wizards will be revived, in which case the wizard-wannabes will all go back to posting their trivia there and complaining long and loud about all the newbie postings the name "wizards" seems to attract, or 2) comp.unix.wizards will have a stake driven through its heart and be buried at a crossroads at midnight, in which case the calls for its revival will spring up an average of every two months UtHDotUotDoUWCL. or 3) the wizard-wannabes will go somewhere and make their own private net, where they can go hide their lack of potty training and exchange notes of congratulation with each other UtHDotUotDoUWCL. Not a pretty prospect. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (10/03/90)
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. Let's leave well enough alone for at least a few months. -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc., uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170
gt0178a@prism.gatech.EDU (Jim Burns) (10/03/90)
in article <10833:Oct221:07:0590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) says: > 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 Sounds interesting. > I'd also like to see comp.unix removed, as it's now utterly redundant. Yes. > To make Chip happy we shouldn't start any official discussion until the > comp.unix.wizards debacle is over. Does the above agenda seem reasonable > as the next step? Yes. -- BURNS,JIM Georgia Institute of Technology, Box 30178, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt0178a Internet: gt0178a@prism.gatech.edu
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (10/03/90)
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 Sounds good, although there's not much sustained traffic currently. | comp.unix.kernel Current UNIX kernel discussions Maybe internals -> kernel, assuming the esoterica passes? | I'd also like to see comp.unix removed, as it's now utterly redundant. Right. -- 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.
gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (10/03/90)
In article <10833:Oct221:07:0590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > comp.unix.kernel Current UNIX kernel discussions Oh, won't any posting to this violate UNIX source license agreements? The lawyers will send the posters a nasty note.... Kernel information is all a trade secret. Right. -- Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) "The esteemed gentlebeing says I called him a liar. It's true, and I regret that." Retief, in "Retiefs' Ransom" by Keith Laumer.
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (10/04/90)
In article <2716@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) 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 > Sounds good, although there's not much sustained traffic currently. A noticeable portion of the u-w traffic would have been perfect for comp.unix.futures. I'd say it was my favorite part of the group. > | comp.unix.kernel Current UNIX kernel discussions > Maybe internals -> kernel, assuming the esoterica passes? Well, I had thought that internals would be the right name, but the word is ambiguous; some people take it as just kernel, and others take it as both kernel and programmer. I really do want a group for the kinds of discussions that the AT&T license doesn't let you participate in. ---Dan
edp367s@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Rik Harris) (10/04/90)
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. Aren't there enough newsgroups for now? There are so many of them... :-) If there is call for a newsgroup, then why not create it. That's the whole reason for having discussion and voting. As for questions, that's what comp.unix.QUESTIONS is for. People there will be able to, at least, tell a confused user where to send followups. >Let's leave well enough alone for at least a few months. I certainly agree that we should wait until the c.u.w stuff settles down. rik. >Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc., >uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 > Sterling, VA 22170 -- Rik Harris - edp367s@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au | Build a system that Faculty of Computing and Information Technology, | even a fool can use, Monash University, Caulfield Campus, Australia | and only a fool will (say that with your mouth full!) | want to use it.
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (10/04/90)
In article <768@sci34hub.UUCP> gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston) writes: > In article <10833:Oct221:07:0590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > > comp.unix.kernel Current UNIX kernel discussions > Oh, won't any posting to this violate UNIX source license agreements? Yes, in fact: from some people, it will. I really do want a group for kernel internals discussions, and AT&T really can force its licensees not to talk about kernel internals. What some people were complaining about before is that unix-wizards was being reduced to comp.unix.internals, when the original group had lots of discussions having nothing to do with the guts of the kernel. ---Dan
gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (10/04/90)
In article <1990Oct3.020951.7499@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > [ first two proposals deleted ] >3) the wizard-wannabes will go somewhere and make their own private >net, where they can go hide their lack of potty training and exchange >notes of congratulation with each other UtHDotUotDoUWCL. > >Not a pretty prospect. I think that this would be the optimal solution. With their own wiz.* hierarchy, they'd go away and quit wasting our time, net.bandwith, and disc space with nonsense like the name of the newsgroup would make them violate their license agreement. Then, people who want to talk about device driver problems, kernel bugs, and such can use c.u.internals or c.u.esoterica, whichever ends up after Chips' current CFD/CFV cycle. Posting a newgroup is NOT going to help their case, either. I rmgrouped it here immediately, and will do so every time a non-vote-approved newgroup shows up. -- Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) "The esteemed gentlebeing says I called him a liar. It's true, and I regret that." Retief, in "Retiefs' Ransom" by Keith Laumer.
gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (10/05/90)
Yes, I know I'm following up to my own posting. In article <769@sci34hub.UUCP> gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston) writes: > [ after a few other things, I commented: ] >Posting a newgroup is NOT going to help their case, either. I rmgrouped >it here immediately, and will do so every time a non-vote-approved >newgroup shows up. It has been pointed out to me that this statement is not clear. I had thought that a posting in a USENET group discussing a former/proposed USENET group and a newgroup in a USENET hierarchy would generally be considered to apply to USENET groups and operations under USENET guidelines, rather than the entire universe, including inet groups. Therefore, permit me to correct the second sentence to read as follows: "I rmgrouped it here immediately, and will do so every time a non-vote- approved USENET newgroup shows up." I hope that Greg Lindahl finds that somewhat more clearly stating my position on the matter. This site does, as it happens, handle vmsnet and unix-pc, at the request of downstream sites. I'll pass on anything they want, all they have to do is ask. I agree, Greg. What a sad state the net is in. -- Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) "The esteemed gentlebeing says I called him a liar. It's true, and I regret that." Retief, in "Retiefs' Ransom" by Keith Laumer.