david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) (10/12/87)
With the impending distribution of C News, shouldn't there be
a matching newsgroup created?
--
<---- David Herron, Local E-Mail Hack, david@ms.uky.edu, david@ms.uky.csnet
<---- {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET
<---- I thought that time was this neat invention that kept everything
<---- from happening at once. Why doesn't this work in practice?henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/15/87)
> With the impending distribution of C News, shouldn't there be > a matching newsgroup created? It's not worth it right now. There really probably should be just one newsgroup, "news.software", since to date there isn't enough diversity in traffic to justify even the subdivision that we now have. -- "Mir" means "peace", as in | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "the war is over; we've won". | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) (10/16/87)
In article <8777@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> With the impending distribution of C News, shouldn't there be >> a matching newsgroup created? >It's not worth it right now. There really probably should be just one >newsgroup, "news.software", since to date there isn't enough diversity >in traffic to justify even the subdivision that we now have. Yes ... I agree the traffic is very low. On the other hand, 2 years from now when the B version is but a dim memory people will ask why the newsgroup name is ".b". On the other hand, does it make more sense to just combine the two existing news.software groups (.b and .nntp) into one? -- <---- David Herron, Local E-Mail Hack, david@ms.uky.edu, david@ms.uky.csnet <---- {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <---- I thought that time was this neat invention that kept everything <---- from happening at once. Why doesn't this work in practice?
gam@amdahl.amdahl.com (Gordon A. Moffett) (10/17/87)
In article <7508@e.ms.uky.edu> david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) writes: >On the other hand, does it make more sense to just combine >the two existing news.software groups (.b and .nntp) into one? Ech! Let us not be so bass-ackwards as to do that! Why must be unify these software groups? That would only lead to confusion ("Are you talking about news B or C or nntp?"). Leave them alone, and by all means lets have a news.software.c pretty soon. Let's use the structure of newsgroup names to help us, not hinder us. -- Gordon A. Moffett gam@amdahl.amdahl.com
chris@gargoyle.UChicago.EDU (Chris Johnston) (10/19/87)
Please name it something sensible like news.software.c. I can see it now someone gets clever and names it news.software. The next thing you know there will be postings of spread sheet shareware or (shudder :-) messages about M.E.Smith. cj
karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer) (10/22/87)
In article <772@gargoyle.UChicago.EDU> chris@gargoyle.uchicago.edu.UUCP (Chris Johnston) writes: >Please name it something sensible like news.software.c. > >I can see it now someone gets clever and names it news.software. The >next thing you know there will be postings of spread sheet shareware... Great! A news.software.c! I can use it to post all my programs that are written in the C language! This potential confusion suggests that it the suffix should be ".cnews" or ".version-c" or something along those lines. Of course this would require renaming or deleting the ".b" newsgroup, for consistency. Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (10/28/89)
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes:
#A proposal was brought up a few months ago to create news.software and
#rmgroup news.software.b. Everytime I post a message to news.software.b
#I still think it is a good idea. Not even a .misc group, just a
#vanilla news.software. Are there any strong arguments against this?
That proposal was voted on, but failed due to lack of interest: I think
there was some other issue filling this group at the time. Pity, it was
a good idea (I voted for it).
We could put it to the vote again - but perhaps better put up an alternative
first; let's have a news.software.c
The benefit of this would be to separate out the C news stuff (of which
there is a lot) from the B news (and all the rest), of which there is still
quite a lot, to the general benefit of those who now have C and don't care
about B, and vice versa. Those who have B but may go over to C eventually
(quite a lot of us I expect) can read both groups, with the benefit of
being able to pick out possibly urgent problems with B news software that
they need to know about now, from problems with C news software that will
hopefully be cleared before they adopt it.
Of course this will open the door to suggestions of
news.software.[3|anu|rn|nn|xrn|my_obscure_version] but why not? If any of
those had enough support/traffic they should have their own groups too, but
at present they don't need it; C news does.
news.software.b would continue to be the general group for news software
that didn't fit into news.software.[c|nntp|notes] - we could maybe
reconsider fixing that later.
Comments? Shall I post a formal CALL FOR DISCUSSION to n.a.n?
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!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWWtale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/29/89)
In <2374@stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes:
DW> We could put it to the vote again - but perhaps better put up an
DW> alternative first; let's have a news.software.c
As stated and re-affirmed by Messrs Spencer and Collyer, they don't
really want a news.software.c. This of course wouldn't prevent the
rest of the net from deciding that they do want it but it is worth
some consideration.
It also seem quite likely that the multiple news.software.* groups
would see a lot of crossposting. There are a lot of topics that are
suitable for discussion in news.software.b, news.software.c and
news.software.nntp concurrently. The overlap is just a little too
great and there really doesn't seem to be need to split. My personal
opinion is that a good news admin should not only be familiar with his
software but other software in common use around USENET.
I would like to see quite the opposite of news.sofware.c. Merge
news.software.b and news.software.nntp into news.software.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (10/31/89)
According to dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright): >We could put it to the vote again - but perhaps better put up an alternative >first; let's have a news.software.c Please, not that! Consider a net.neophyte... "Where should I post my new program for proving that 1 == 0? Oh, look, a newsgroup for C software: `news.software.c'." Shudder. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "'Why do we post to Usenet?' Naturally, the answer is, 'To get a response.'" -- Brad "Flame Me" Templeton