jeff@jeffpc.eds.com (Jeff Trim) (12/03/89)
In article <43327@bu-cs.BU.EDU> ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) writes: >I... I.... I've .... um.... programmed.... in.... well... um.... COBOL. > >[Well, there goes that engagement to Barry's daughter. :-] > >Yeah, I'd read alt.cobol (or comp.lang.cobol). I'd even post to it, though >I can't claim any sort of divine knowledge of the darned thing. Ummm to be honest I didn't like the idea of VMSNET when it was first proposed but you know maybe they can take over some of these groups that don't work under UNIX (ala alt.cobol) and move them to: vmsnet.cobol COBOL is typically found on VMS-ish OS's anyway and since the heirarchy is starting out they can easily go over to 'vmsnet' - that way the readership will grow and 'alt' will get smaller. Folks on VMS talk alot about COBOL so it could be a good match. What does everyone else think? Might even add some creedence to the 'vmsnet' heirarchy. - Jeff -- INET: jeff@jeffpc.eds.com UUCP: [ uunet, teemc ]!{edsews, glc}!jeffpc!jeff Disclaimer: Don't blame anyone else but me -- I said it.
aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) (12/04/89)
In article <5@jeffpc.eds.com> jeff@jeffpc.eds.com (Jeff Trim) writes: >proposed but you know maybe they can take over some of these groups >that don't work under UNIX (ala alt.cobol) and move them to: [vmsnet] By that reasoning, someone should start an IBMNET heirarchy so all the groups better left ignored by the civilized world can be put in one place! heh heh heh just a joke, of course :-) (there goes my chance to work for IBM.. damn) aem -- a.e.mossberg / aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu / aem@umiami.BITNET / Pahayokee Bioregion No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary. - William Occam
markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) (12/05/89)
In article <5@jeffpc.eds.com> jeff@jeffpc.UUCP (Jeff Trim) writes: > >Ummm to be honest I didn't like the idea of VMSNET when it was first >proposed but you know maybe they can take over some of these groups >that don't work under UNIX (ala alt.cobol) and move them to: > > vmsnet.cobol > >What does everyone else think? Might even add some creedence to the >'vmsnet' heirarchy. > A couple of problems: 1) There are other OS's besides VMS which run COBOL. Although not a COBOL programmer myself, I feel a mainstream comp.lang.cobol group is justified. A VMSNET-only distribution would never be seen by most USENET sites. 2) VMSNET is not USENET. If you are seriously proposing a new VMSNET group, the discussion belongs in vmsnet.admin. VMSNET does not currently have any language groups, but these will probably be created in the future. For better of worse, VMSNET is already up and running. Let's not make fun of VMS users, let's help them get set up. Most VMS sites are not networked at all. VMSNET gives them a chance to get hooked up in a manner which the VMS site administrators can justify to their superiors (the folks who pay for it). Then once we get them hooked up, we can start feeding them comp and sci, then rec, soc, talk, etc. By the time we start feeding them alt, they'll be totally helpless! :-) :-) :-) -- Mark H. Weber | Internet: markw@GVL.Unisys.COM Unisys - Great Valley Labs | UUCP: ...!uunet!lgnp1!gvlv2!markw Paoli, PA USA (215) 648-7111 | ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!markw
wally@pallas.UUCP (Wally Hartshorn) (12/05/89)
Excuse me if my ignorance is showing, but what is vmsnet? I don't think we get it at this site, so it wouldn't do me much good if the cobol group were set up there. -- Wally (uunet!pallas!wally or wally@athenanet.com) "Student signature -- Stand clear."
sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) (12/06/89)
Jeff Trim (jeff@jeffpc.UUCP) writes: >COBOL is typically found on VMS-ish OS's anyway and since the heirarchy >is starting out they can easily go over to 'vmsnet' - that way the >readership will grow and 'alt' will get smaller. Folks on VMS talk >alot about COBOL so it could be a good match. > >What does everyone else think? Might even add some creedence to the >'vmsnet' heirarchy. There are two alternatives. 1) Jeff Trim is completely serious. 2) Jeff is saying the above with the tongue well masked in the cheek. There is not much evidence of the latter, except that that would give better impression of his intellectual status. If he really is serious, the idea is of course ridiculous. VMSnet is about VMS. And Cobol is used on many operating systems, even Unix. And there's no particular binding VMS - Cobol. If you swap the to first character to MVS, then maybe. And, people on VMS doesn't talk much about Cobol, at least not INFO-VAX/comp.os.vms. The language which which most people seems to have problems with there is C. OK, so Jeff wants to keep "alt" down. I've good news for you. With some luck alt.cobol won't be needed. There is a vote for comp.lang.cobol going on right now. Just send your vote to me. -- Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se