brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (09/09/90)
A very simple solution to this entire issue: Gateway the unix-wizards mailing list to comp.unix.programmer rather than to comp.unix.internals. This solves the problem for the source license people, better reflects the contents of the list, and doesn't require any work outside the list gateway. > If anyone objects strongly to a bending of the guidelines here, please > let yourself be heard. I don't want this group's propagation to be > fragmented because of administrator resentment. I'm listening. There's enough resentment already. Don't make it a USENET problem. ---Dan
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (09/09/90)
In article <7489:Sep901:11:2390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >A very simple solution to this entire issue: Gateway the unix-wizards >mailing list to comp.unix.programmer rather than to comp.unix.internals. Why? Do wizards talk only about programming? No. Do wizards talk only about internals? No. It seems that the original proposal didn't rename comp.unix.wizards, it destroyed it. I've recommended to Eric Fair that he keep the inet group comp.unix.wizards, and make it self-moderated like alt.hackers to keep the noise down. -- "Perhaps I'm commenting a bit cynically, but I think I'm qualified to." - Dan Bernstein
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (09/09/90)
In article <1990Sep9.051053.2696@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: > In article <7489:Sep901:11:2390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > >A very simple solution to this entire issue: Gateway the unix-wizards > >mailing list to comp.unix.programmer rather than to comp.unix.internals. > Why? > Do wizards talk only about programming? No. > Do wizards talk only about internals? No. That's irrelevant. As you would be able to verify if you archived (or read) these groups, almost all of the threads in unix-wizards are very accurately described by ``UNIX programming discussions.'' Hence unix-wizards is most appropriately gatewayed into comp.unix.programmer. This also solves the possible problem of UNIX source licenses keeping people away from unix-wizards just because they can't talk about UNIX internals. > It seems that the original proposal didn't rename comp.unix.wizards, > it destroyed it. The group wasn't ``destroyed'' by anything but the explosion of USENET. It's no longer the corner of the net where wizards hold a private party, with awestruck outsiders peering in for a glimpse of greatness. For years now it's been just another newsgroup. Moderating it might bring back the original but would destroy the different group that now exists. > I've recommended to Eric Fair that he keep the inet > group comp.unix.wizards, and make it self-moderated like alt.hackers > to keep the noise down. Sure, it would be nice for wizards to have a place to hang out and chat without the restrictions of e-mail. (Why do you care?) Unfortunately, a newsgroup that functioned the way u-w was meant to would be a ``magnet group'' and would have to be moderated; changing comp.unix.wizards into such a moderated group would eliminate the open forum that a lot of people now consider a valuable resource. Step 1 is to be realistic and gateway the mailing list into the most appopriate newsgroup, hence solving the problems that started this thread. Step 2 is to make a wizards group like u-w used to be. I don't know the best way to do this; let's get step 1 done first. ---Dan
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (09/10/90)
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >> >A very simple solution to this entire issue: Gateway the unix-wizards >> >mailing list to comp.unix.programmer rather than to comp.unix.internals. >> Why? >> Do wizards talk only about programming? No. >> Do wizards talk only about internals? No. > >That's irrelevant. As you would be able to verify if you archived (or >read) these groups, almost all of the threads in unix-wizards are very >accurately described by ``UNIX programming discussions.'' Hence >unix-wizards is most appropriately gatewayed into comp.unix.programmer. >This also solves the possible problem of UNIX source licenses keeping >people away from unix-wizards just because they can't talk about UNIX >internals. Won't work. You may have the mapping right one way (though I suspect not), but the mapping from "things accurately described as Unix programming discussions" to "threads interesting to wizards" fails big time. The stuff interesting to wizards gets drowned by stuff interesting to me and to other applications programmers. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
richard@locus.com (Richard M. Mathews) (09/10/90)
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >Do wizards talk only about programming? No. >Do wizards talk only about internals? No. >It seems that the original proposal didn't rename comp.unix.wizards, >it destroyed it. It wasn't renamed or destroyed. I would say it was split up. Topics previously covered in c.u.w now seem to be distributed between (at least) internals, programmer, shell, and admin. There seemed to be great unhappiness with the mishmash of stuff in the old group, so why would we want to go back to that? The new organization makes it easier for any given wizard to pick and choose from a menu of wizardly discussions. A wizard who feels uncomfortable discussing internals would have refrained from such discussion in the old c.u.w and will now refrain from such discussions in c.u.i. That still leaves discussions in the other new groups where such a wizard can still be at home. Richard M. Mathews Locus Computing Corporation richard@locus.com lcc!richard@seas.ucla.edu ...!{uunet|ucla-se|turnkey}!lcc!richard
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (09/10/90)
In article <richard.652959820@fafnir.la.locus.com> richard@locus.com (Richard M. Mathews) writes: | It wasn't renamed or destroyed. I would say it was split up. Topics | previously covered in c.u.w now seem to be distributed between (at | least) internals, programmer, shell, and admin. There seemed to be | great unhappiness with the mishmash of stuff in the old group, so | why would we want to go back to that? The new organization makes it | easier for any given wizard to pick and choose from a menu of wizardly | discussions. If you open enough oysters you can find pearls, too. The group which used to be mainly good reading with a flavoring of baby talk is now a treasure hunt through many groups filled with appropriate stuff, with just enough wizard stuff to give it flavor. The group seems dead, I'm going to have to join the inet list when I dig out the address. No one group seems to have what the old wizards did, so whatever the intent the group has been effectively killed. Pity that arcana was not socially acceptable as a name. -- 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.
jonb@specialix.co.uk (Jon Brawn) (09/20/90)
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >Do wizards talk only about programming? No. >Do wizards talk only about internals? No. Indeed, some talk about open-toed sandals & how to get egg out from ones beard. The wizards have been cast out of their lair. It is a sad day when the children refuse to acknowledge the elders. -- Here I speak neither for Specialix, nor myself. What you see is all you get. Jon Brawn, jonb@specialix.co.uk (or for you bangers: ..!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!jonb) ``Once upon a time, not so very long ago, on a network not so very far away''