baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Steven L. Baur) (04/10/90)
The poll on splitting the comp.windows.x newsgroup is complete. In all I received 102 responses, and voting was in favor 95-5. 16 people indicated that either they only receive xpert, or xpert is their preferred method of reading comp.windows.x. Following is a summary of the comments I got: (for and against). I quoted directly several people, since I believe their comments will be germane in the coming discussion of the breakup. Many thanks to all those who responded, since this was not an official vote, I will not list all the responders e-mail addresses. dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks): Suggested comp.windows.motif. "Mark D. Baushke" <mdb@kosciusko.ESD.3Com.COM>: Is against the split because he fears too much cross posting will result. Many: There's just too much volume in comp.windows.x. "Larry W. Virden Kell. 2487" <lwv27%cas.BITNET%CAS.BITNET@CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu>: Has concerns relating to forcing the MIT X Consortium to maintain extra, separate mailing lists. Scott Raney <raney@gabor.Colorado.EDU>: Suggests comp.windows.x.widgets. cruc!julie@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (julie spiegler): Suggests another subgroup dealing with installation of X, since it clutters up postings about software/programming problems. djg@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Don Giberson): prc@erbe.se (Robert Claeson): unify!sicily.wrk (Walter Kopp): Suggests comp.windows.x.openlook. Many: Get the xview/motif stuff out of comp.windows.x so that I don't have to bother with it. horen@cadence.com (Jonathan Horen): [verbatim from Jonathon]. I vote "no" for the split -- I think that we tend/are pushed to become too specialized in work/thought/etc. I think that the cross-pollination between the various directions in the comp.windows.x readership helps all of us, regardless of "brand loyalties" (does anyone in this newsgroup buy something because of "brand loyalty"??) warsaw@cme.nist.gov (Barry A. Warsaw): Prefers no split because, despite the traffic, he sometimes likes to read everything anyway, and would prefer one location to get it. preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece): [verbatim from Scott]: There's also a complication in that the split you propose names a GUI as one branch (Motif) and a toolkit on the other (xview). Since there are multiple toolkits implementing both Motif and OPEN LOOK GUIs, you need to either split on GUI lines (Motif, OPEN LOOK, NewWave, Next Step, etc) or split on toolkit lines (Xm, Solbourne, Xt+, Xview, etc.). I don't know if the world is ready yet... ---- End of summarized responses ---- -- steve baur@venice.sedd.trw.com