chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (09/05/90)
[ Followups to news.groups ] According to pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham): >Is anyone concerned that others will refuse to use c.u.i because >they find it inappropriate (or believe that their unix source >license prohibits them from posting to a group called c.u.i)? I don't think the newsgroup name will be a factor. After all, if people realize that comp.sources.unix isn't for proprietary UNIX[tm] source code, then they should also realize that c.u.internals will not be a vehicle for trade secret disclosure. According to jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II): >How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced >the name change really was a bad idea? As for people who think c.u.internals was a bad idea, well, the group passed its vote according to the guidelines. Anyone who thinks it should be renamed is free to run another vote. I should hope that administrators will carry c.u.internals in the meantime. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (09/07/90)
From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) >Well, I'm tending to agree with Doug Gwyn. Doug's statement was >that he wouldn't be able to discuss UNIX internals because his >license prohibited him from doing so. Since I don't have a copy >of the non-disclosure agreements I signed with AT&T and IBM, I >think I too will have to bow out. > >This voting business is really beginning to look pretty silly. >What we really need is a good backbone cabal. I tend to agree also. What we need is something akin to a *constitution*, some set of basic rules/rights which no vote can violate (except a vote to change the constitution, which should be made difficult tho not impossible.) There also might be room for "special interest" votes, where the groups in question are recognized as being special interest enough that somehow the voting should be limited to interested parties (think of it like the difference between "state's rights" and "federal rights", the inherent problem of California being allowed to vote on how Wyoming spends their internal revenues, eg., I know, it happens, again, just an analogy.) One might, in this example, have compiled a list of contributors to c.u.w (perhaps some other groups, c.u.q) and restricted the vote to them. The fear being, members of another special interest "stuffing the ballot boxes" in a destructive way, perhaps not even totally maliciously, just misguided. Or even maliciously, or so self-interested as to make a mockery of the process (some large company voting against the creation of a group for a small competitor, e.g.) I think we are quite vulnerable to all these problems. I'd sum up at least some of these particular voting results to be: A group which was created to allow experts to chit-chat amongst themselves has now been re-structured with the hidden agenda to try to turn them into free consultants. One should be able to see the conflict of interest here, the vast majority would of course vote to "enslave" (again, I exaggerate) the relatively few experts. Why not? Why was it important at all to remove c.u.w? Why not just create some magnet groups so wizards can have some peace to speak about relatively wizardly matters? Was it to make sure that wizards had nowhere else to go??? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) (09/07/90)
In <BARNETT.90Sep6125844@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) writes: > >In article <18533@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > >> Well, I'm tending to agree with Doug Gwyn. Doug's statement was >> that he wouldn't be able to discuss UNIX internals because his >> license prohibited him from doing so. > >What does the NAME of the newsgroup have to do with anything? > >As I understand it, John and Doug can post Unix(TM) articles in a >newsgroup called comp.unix.spam, but can't legally post a SPAM recipe >to comp.unix.internals? > >No-one said people are *required* to discuss proprietary info in >c.u.i. If your license prevents you from doing so, then don't post >anything proprietary. Hasn't this always been the case? > >Am I missing something here? No, Bruce, you aren't missing anything, except perhaps the view of the pouting faces of Doug Gwyn and John Haugh, III. They are (apparently) quite miffed that "their" newsgroup was renamed under their noses. I, too, am not happy that c.u.wizards is no longer an official newsgroup, but I voted against the name change and lost, fair and square. Like a good net.citizen (one of the few, it seems) I actually read news.group and evaluate the discussions. Like, D.G. and JFH3, I also have signed various license and non-disclosure agreements in my varied positions and situations, and reviewing the texts, it is clear that there is not terribly much of my unix knowledge that I cannot share with the world. There are lots of certain application specific things that I still feel honor-bound to not reveal (even though certain time limits have expired and some of the information has been published in some obscure tech journals), but the most wizardly things that I am likely to discuss here are publicly available in a variety of forms. It is just possible that some people are frightened by the posturings and quibblings of various lawyers (net and real) and have been advised to limit their participation, but I can't really see them not stating that up front. No, the only thing preventing them from continuing to discuss whatever they were discussing before the group was renamed is a lot of ego. Its too bad that some of the most erudite contributors to c.u.wizards are going to let their inflated sense of self-importance lead them to think that they can abridge the consensus to the net by picking up their ball and going home. It looks more like they are going out into the yard to eat "worms". -- Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply>
jay@silence.princeton.nj.us (Jay Plett) (09/07/90)
In article <1990Sep7.010347.24458@wolves.uucp>, ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: > No, the only thing preventing them from continuing to discuss whatever > they were discussing before the group was renamed is a lot of ego. Its > too bad that some of the most erudite contributors to c.u.wizards are > going to let their inflated sense of self-importance lead them to think > that they can abridge the consensus to the net by picking up their ball > and going home. It looks more like they are going out into the yard to > eat "worms". Easy, now. Of at least one of the two people you are talking about, it can be said that he is irascible, rude, inconsiderate and egotistical, as evidenced by many of his postings. But it must also be acknowledged that his contribution to this newsgroup--not to mention his contribution to Unix--is formidable. Were he to never post again, the loser would be this noosegroup and its readers, not him. ...jay
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (09/07/90)
(In this article, I suggest renaming c.u.internals to c.u.esoterica. Please read the entire article before commenting on it. Followups to news.groups.) During all the discussion of the comp.unix.* reorganization, people spoke up for and against renaming c.u.wizards. But no one ever suggested that the name "c.u.internals" could cause LEGAL difficulty. The idea seems ridiculous to me. But then, who ever said the law couldn't be ridiculous? From what I've read, the word "internals" is specifically mentioned in the AT&T source license. So people who have read the source code are hesitant to post anything to a newsgroup with the word "internals" in the name. Sigh. So I think it's time to rename the group again. As I recall, the best alternative name proposed during the discussion was "c.u.esoterica". At the time, I considered this name to be too vague; but it looks like the best choice right now. Someone (I) could run a vote on the renaming of c.u.internals to c.u.esoterica. But that would take a month for the discussion (again!) and three weeks for the vote (again!). However, since the discussion period has already run for the c.u.* reorganization, and c.u.esoterica resulted from that discussion, perhaps we could skip the discussion phase and go straight to a vote. Furthermore, due to the legal repercussions of the current name, we could just rename c.u.internals to c.u.esoterica immediately. 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. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
asherman@dino.ulowell.edu (Aaron Sherman) (09/08/90)
ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: In <BARNETT.90Sep6125844@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) writes: > >> Well, I'm tending to agree with Doug Gwyn. Doug's statement was >> that he wouldn't be able to discuss UNIX internals because his >> license prohibited him from doing so. > >What does the NAME of the newsgroup have to do with anything? > >As I understand it, John and Doug can post Unix(TM) articles in a >newsgroup called comp.unix.spam, but can't legally post a SPAM recipe >to comp.unix.internals? > >No-one said people are *required* to discuss proprietary info in >c.u.i. If your license prevents you from doing so, then don't post >anything proprietary. Hasn't this always been the case? > >Am I missing something here? No, Bruce, you aren't missing anything, except perhaps the view of the pouting faces of Doug Gwyn and John Haugh, III. They are (apparently) quite miffed that "their" newsgroup was renamed under their noses. [...] No, the only thing preventing them from continuing to discuss whatever they were discussing before the group was renamed is a lot of ego. Its too bad that some of the most erudite contributors to c.u.wizards are going to let their inflated sense of self-importance lead them to think that they can abridge the consensus to the net by picking up their ball and going home. It looks more like they are going out into the yard to eat "worms". Hmmm... I think that this is getting a little out of hand. I like the idea of a group as broad in scope as comp.unix.wizards being broken up into several groups. But the name "internals" does suggest discussion of that which some of us have signed agreements not to discuss. Thus I suggest that someone start a vote to change the name to something like "technical". It's too bad that "wizards" was too broad, as it tended to keep the l^Huser questions out (sometimes :), and managed not to sound like we were giving away internal secrets. No matter what we do, lets keep flames like the above out of it. -AJS -- asherman@dino.ulowell.edu or asherman%cpe@swan.ulowell.edu Note that as of 7/18/90 that's asherman@dino.cpe.ulowell.edu "That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is."
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (09/10/90)
In article <26E7C052.73E@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >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. ... the name "comp.unix.wizards". it has such a nice ring to it. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
jackv@turnkey.tcc.com (Jack F. Vogel) (09/10/90)
In article <18539@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >In article <26E7C052.73E@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>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. >... the name "comp.unix.wizards". it has such a nice >ring to it. I don't know, given that most of what I've seen in this group in the last couple of days have been 20 to 30 repetitive followups on how to recover the root password, not only is "wizards" not the word that comes to mind, but "internals" seems equally inappropriate. How about comp.unix.metoo :-}! Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine not my employer's. -- Jack F. Vogel jackv@locus.com AIX370 Technical Support - or - Locus Computing Corp. jackv@turnkey.TCC.COM
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (09/11/90)
In article <18530@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: #In article <34639@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes: #>Based upon the mishmash arriving at my site some peope are aliasing #>comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.internals ... is anyone doing the opposite? # #How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced #the name change really was a bad idea? Count me for one. I didn't bother with the original vote as I thought the real UNIX wizards on the net could quite well look after themselves, and when the result came out I followed it like a good news admin should (though I hadn't removed c.u.wizards). But it now seems clear we've made a collective mistake. Quite apart from the legal arguement (which I don't buy - but I'm not a lawyer), the sort of things discussed in c.u.wizards cover far more than just 'internals'. In fact on my recent reading of the group there's very little about the internals of UNIX, if that means kernal stuff, and still under half if you include the file system etc. The only solution, I think, is another vote. Who will do a formal CALL? Pending the result, lets leave both groups in place, with no aliasing. BTW, I've cross-posted this to c.u.wizards. If you see it in c.u.internals its been aliased. Regards, "None shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity" David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW <or> /g=David/s=Wright/org=STC Technology Ltd/prmd=STC plc/admd=Gold 400/co=GB
wsinpdb@svin02.info.win.tue.nl (Paul de Bra) (09/11/90)
In article <3370@stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: >... Quite apart from the legal arguement (which I don't >buy - but I'm not a lawyer), the sort of things discussed in c.u.wizards >cover far more than just 'internals'. In fact on my recent reading of the >group there's very little about the internals of UNIX, if that means kernal >stuff, and still under half if you include the file system etc. The whole issue went right by me as well, mostly because I was on vacation. But judging from the level of postings in c.u.wizards, the name 'wizards' didn't seem very appropriate to me anyway. I disagree that c.u.wizards was not discussing unix internals. Unix is more than a kernel and a file system. There are many questions about shell programming, awk, C, and other Unix goodies. Given a system not running a Unix kernel (Mach for instance) but with all Unix utilities, I would still perceive that as a Unix system. However, take the shell (or other major utilities) away from a real Unix system, and I would no longer perceive it as a Unix system. c.u.wizards was and c.u.internals is about the internals of the whole Unix system, which is not just the kernel, but also the standard utilities. Anyway, c.u.wizards or c.u.internals is not for discussions of c.u.wizards versus c.u.internals. Can we please go back to discussing Unix, PLEASE??? Paul. (debra@research.att.com)
sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) (09/12/90)
In article <3370@stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: }#How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced }#the name change really was a bad idea? }Count me for one. I didn't bother with the original vote as I thought the }The only solution, I think, is another vote. Who will do a formal CALL? }Pending the result, lets leave both groups in place, with no aliasing. Until another vote is called on this subject van-bc will carry comp.unix.internals without removing or aliasing comp.unix.wizards. -- Stuart Lynne Unifax Communications Inc. ...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) sl@wimsey.bc.ca
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (09/12/90)
[ Followups to news.groups. ] According to ray@ctbilbo.UUCP (Ray Ward): >The name "wizards" was sufficiently intimidating to keep novice >posting to a minimum ... I must have been reading a different group from Mr. Ward. I found the newbie-magnet effect in c.u.wizards irritatingly pronounced. >I highly resent having the name changed, and then finding out about >it after the fact with no opportunity to contribute to the discussion. I cross-posted the Call For Discussion and the Call For Votes to comp.unix.wizards and news.announce.newgroups. The very reason that that news.announce.newgroups exists is to warn users of proposed and ongoing newsgroup creation votes. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Anyone who doesn't read news.announce.newgroups had better enjoy surprises. It is apparent that Mr. Ward didn't take the time to read n.a.n, which is of course his privilege. But it's disingenuous for anyone who doesn't read n.a.n to complain about not having seen its contents. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) (09/13/90)
In message <1857@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca>, sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes: > > Until another vote is called on this subject van-bc will carry > comp.unix.internals without removing or aliasing comp.unix.wizards. That's just what I'm doing here. Maybe because of the harsh lessons from the climate up here, we Canadians have learned not to tear down bridges until the new ones are proven. I think the smart thing to do at this time is to undo the c.u.w rmgroup and let this thing ride for the rest of the year. It's just possible that the new c.u.* groups will soak up much of the stuff that was overloading c.u.w. Internals is a valid but separate topic from wizards anyway. Can't I be a unix wizard on an externals topic? On the other hand, we could try c.u.necromancer ;-). -- Yours etc., Tony Olekshy. Internet: tony%oha@CS.UAlberta.CA BITNET: tony%oha.uucp@UALTAMTS.BITNET uucp: alberta!oha!tony
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (09/13/90)
In article <1857@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca> sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes: |In article <3370@stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: |}#How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced |}#the name change really was a bad idea? | |}Count me for one. I didn't bother with the original vote as I thought the | |}The only solution, I think, is another vote. Who will do a formal CALL? |}Pending the result, lets leave both groups in place, with no aliasing. | |Until another vote is called on this subject van-bc will carry |comp.unix.internals without removing or aliasing comp.unix.wizards. System becker, on the other hand, will alias comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.internals. Since this is a B news site, outgoing articles will all be sent as newsgroup comp.unix.internals. If another vote revises this requirement, then so be it... Cheers, -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "I still have my phil-os-o-phy" - Meredith Monk
del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) (09/14/90)
In article <450@oha.UUCP> tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) writes: >I think the smart thing to do at this time is to undo the c.u.w rmgroup and >let this thing ride for the rest of the year. It's just possible that the >new c.u.* groups will soak up much of the stuff that was overloading c.u.w. >Internals is a valid but separate topic from wizards anyway. Can't I be >a unix wizard on an externals topic? I've been thinking about unaliasing c.u.wizards here. It seems to me that c.u.wizards - (c.u.admin + c.u.internals + c.u.programmer) is probably just noise, so I could unsubscribe to c.u.wizards and increase the signal to noise ratio of what I read. -- Don "Truck" Lewis Harris Semiconductor Internet: del@mlb.semi.harris.com PO Box 883 MS 62A-028 Phone: (407) 729-5205 Melbourne, FL 32901
ted@stb.info.com (Theodore Thomas Garrett) (09/14/90)
In article <3370@stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: >In article <18530@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >#In article <34639@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes: >#>Based upon the mishmash arriving at my site some peope are aliasing >#>comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.internals ... is anyone doing the opposite? ># >#How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced >#the name change really was a bad idea? > >Count me for one. I didn't bother with the original vote as I thought the >real UNIX wizards on the net could quite well look after themselves, and >when the result came out I followed it like a good news admin should >(though I hadn't removed c.u.wizards). But it now seems clear we've made >a collective mistake. Quite apart from the legal arguement (which I don't >buy - but I'm not a lawyer), the sort of things discussed in c.u.wizards >cover far more than just 'internals'. In fact on my recent reading of the >group there's very little about the internals of UNIX, if that means kernal >stuff, and still under half if you include the file system etc. > >The only solution, I think, is another vote. Who will do a formal CALL? >Pending the result, lets leave both groups in place, with no aliasing. If there need be a formal call for votes, I so issue it. c.u.w. needs to co-exist with, if not predispose of c.u.i. I hereby call for votes on re-instating comp.unix.wizards.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (09/15/90)
In article <1990Sep14.010840.26683@mlb.semi.harris.com> del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) writes: | I've been thinking about unaliasing c.u.wizards here. It seems to me | that c.u.wizards - (c.u.admin + c.u.internals + c.u.programmer) is probably | just noise, so I could unsubscribe to c.u.wizards and increase the | signal to noise ratio of what I read. The question is, is the alias installed on major sites like uunet? If they are doing the alias very little will get through. -- 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.
luke@modus.sublink.ORG (Luciano Mannucci) (09/15/90)
In article <3370@stl.stc.co.uk>, dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: %In article <18530@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: %#In article <34639@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes: %#}Based upon the mishmash arriving at my site some peope are aliasing %#}comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.internals ... is anyone doing the opposite? %# %#How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced %#the name change really was a bad idea? % % Count me for one. And Me too! Disclaimer: My humble opinions may not reflect my computer's ones. luke. - -- _ _ __ Via Aleardo Aleardi, 12 - 20154 Milano (Italy) | | | _ _| (__ PHONE : +39 2 3315328 FAX: +39 2 3315778 | | |(_)(_||_|___) Srl E-MAIL: luke@modus.sublink.ORG ______________________________ Software & Services for Advertising & Marketing