dig@peritek.UUCP (Dave Gotwisner) (03/15/89)
In article <14717@bellcore.bellcore.com>, gregg@jcricket.ctt.bellcore.com (Victor Scott Gregg) writes: > In article <829@hydra.cs.Helsinki.FI> Anssi_Porttikivi@cs.helsinki.fi writes: > >Subject: Re: Is it time for Comp.windows.x.bugs? > >I simply can't follow the X group. There is too much traffic. Yet I am > >not interested in subtle details of every aspect of X Window System. > >The biggest problem in reading USENET is sorting out the useful > >information. Thus newsgroups which carry more text than say ten > >messages a day are a pain. > > I asked the same question last month, and received no responses or > follow-up. Perhaps the question didn't get out to a suffcient number of > sites. Also, I didn't crosspost to comp.windows.x. > > Does anyone else who reads comp.windows.x have an oppinion in this? > > Should someone cross post this request to c.w.x ? > > Would anyone volunteer to hold a discussion/vote ? > I agree, comp.windows.x should split it up. I am cross posting this to comp.windows.x to include the entire group since c.w.x readers are the ones this most affects (as opposed to news.groups). I personally don't think the break should be on bugs/not bugs, but on client/server. I think that we should increase the number of groups on the net, making them more specific, and having fewer articles in the group (either this or make the news readers a lot more intelligent). For me, this would make it a lot easier to read the articles/discussions that I am interested in (I do not like to have to hit the n key 10 times to skip a discussion, I would rather type N once or twice). I am currently working on a server implementation, and don't really care about the client related discussions going on at this point. When we have another programmer assigned to X window applications, he would probably be more interested in just the client related discussions. If I end up having to maintain both client applications and server work, it does not cost me anything to have the discussions in two separate groups as opposed to one group, and in fact bundling the client discussions together and the server discussions together would make it a lot easier to go through the group when working on both parts (I am really only capable of doing one thing at a time or working on one problem/project at a time). In looking at subjects for a random 92 articles in my comp.windows.x directory, I could classify 35 client related, 30 server related, and 32 which are not really either. 5 of the 92 I listed as both client and server because they were about problems/questions about the client/server interface. ************** PROPOSAL ************** What I am opening up to discussion is a proposal to split comp.windows.x into comp.windows.x.server, comp.windows.x.client, and comp.windows.x.misc, to correspond with the way X is architected. comp.windows.x.server Discussions about X Window servers comp.windows.x.clients Discussions about X Window clients/applications comp.windows.x.misc Discussions about X Window not fitting into the above two catagories Questions about things like: Looking for <program> would go into comp.windows.x.clients, Looking for X running on a <computer or operating system> would go in comp.windows.x.server. bugs/bug fixes about certain aspects of X would go to the appropriate newsgroup (server bugs into comp.windows.x.server, client bugs into comp.windows.x.clients, and bugs which affect the interface cross posted to both). Please follow up to BOTH newsgroups (news.groups, comp.windows.x), as the discussion is relevant to both. The discussion period will last until the end of March (2 weeks + 3 days). If the discussion looks like a vote should be called for, I will post voting instructions towards the end of the discussion period, and will moderate the vote. The voting period would be from April 1 through April 15. All votes which come to me or are posted prior to then will be ignored. I will post the results of the vote on April 18th (to allow recovery from taxes and NCGA prep work). If you are going to flame, please do it via E-Mail rather than through news. Dave -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Gotwisner UUCP: ...!unisoft!peritek!dig Peritek Corporation ...!vsi1!peritek!dig 5550 Redwood Road Oakland, CA 94619 Phone: 1-415-531-6500
mellon@eris.berkeley.edu (Ted Lemon) (03/15/89)
dave@peritek.uucp suggests splitting comp.windows.x up into cwx.server, cwx.client and cwx.misc (where cwx stands for comp.windows.x). Another person suggested having a group called cwx.bugs. I am generally in favour of these ideas - bandwidth on comp.windows.x is too high, and too scattered, to make reading it anything but a chore. I'd like to add a few suggestions to the list, though, since the groups suggested above don't seem satisfactory to me. Here's how I'd like to see it divided: comp.windows.x General X discussion. comp.windows.x.announce Announcements from athena or other X contributors. Should be moderated. comp.windows.x.toolkits Discussion about various toolkits. The idea of going down yet another level in this tree is enticing. comp.windows.x.clients Discussion about client implementation. comp.windows.x.server Discussion about server implementation. comp.windows.x.distrib Discussion about the MIT X Distribution, such as ``why doesn't this build?'' This way, people who are only interested in hearing about bug fixes, new releases of software, and similar items can read cwx.announce without having to read a bunch of stuff about HP toolkits, or whatever the current discussion happens to be about. As always, please flame by EMail. _MelloN_
bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (03/15/89)
In article <564@peritek.UUCP> dig@peritek.UUCP (Dave Gotwisner) writes:
...comp.windows.x should split it up... either this or make the
news readers a lot more intelligent...I do not like to have to hit
the n key 10 times to skip a discussion, I would rather type N once
or twice...
The more intelligent news reading software exists: use rn or xrn or
GNUS or gnews, all of which have "kill" capability. For example, in
rn, "k" kills a subject during this invocaton of the news reader, "K"
kills it permanently by sticking your dis-preferences in a file.
Please follow up to BOTH newsgroups (news.groups, comp.windows.x),
as the discussion is relevant to both.
Please remember that lots of folks (as RWS points out, the Consortium
staff) still read comp.windows.x. as the xpert mailing list. Their
responses will go (as his already has) to xpert/c.w.x and not to
news.groups. Besides, folks running news 2.11.17 have to go to a
non-trivial amount of work to have their followup sent to more than
one group.
The discussion period will last until the end of March (2 weeks + 3
days).
If the Consortium staff, who have graciously consented to allow their
mailing list to be gatewayed for the convenience of folks like us who
prefer the news mechanisms, say that they don't want to split it up,
then there's really not much discussion involved, and certainly not a
vote! The Consortium staff would read whichever group is still
gatewayed with the xpert mailing list, and the others would be
altogether without the benefit of their wisdom, and vice versa.meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (03/16/89)
In article <564@peritek.UUCP> dig@peritek.UUCP (Dave Gotwisner) writes:
- In looking at subjects for a random 92 articles in my comp.windows.x
-directory, I could classify 35 client related, 30 server related, and 32
-which are not really either. 5 of the 92 I listed as both client and
-server because they were about problems/questions about the client/server
-interface.
-************** PROPOSAL **************
-What I am opening up to discussion is a proposal to split comp.windows.x into
-comp.windows.x.server, comp.windows.x.client, and comp.windows.x.misc, to
-correspond with the way X is architected.
-
-comp.windows.x.server Discussions about X Window servers
-comp.windows.x.clients Discussions about X Window clients/applications
-comp.windows.x.misc Discussions about X Window not fitting into the
- above two catagories
I don't think this is a good idea. A split may or may not be a good
idea, but at this stage of the game, I don't think this split will
be in the best interests of the X11 community.
1) For newcomers, especially, it can be very difficult to easily determine
where their question belongs. Result, you get postings in both groups,
resulting in (at best) wasted traffic teling the newcomer the proper
protocal, and (at worst) flame wars about the proper protocol, etc.
2) The volume is not all that high yet. Using the headers command (= in rn)
and the jn key combo, I get through the articles pretty quickly. Most of
the groups I read/post are either much lower volume, or much higher than
comp.windows.x (ie, 5-10/day, or 70-100/day).
3) Many areas are blurred between the two. Many of us really don't CARE
how much of the font/cursor/etc stuff is in the server vs the client.
We end up with artificial boundaries for a large part of the community.
(the us here being applications developers)
4) Finally, many postings will contain at least some modicum of information
interesting to people other than those the article is truly targeting.
Several times I have come across valuable information in an article that
was primarily concerned with other issues.
So, I don't think the client/server/misc split will work, nor do I think
something like the unix.{wizard/novice} split would work.
-Miles O'Neal
gatech!stiatl!meobilld@hobbes.celerity (Bill Davidson) (03/21/89)
In article <564@peritek.UUCP> dig@peritek.UUCP (Dave Gotwisner) writes: >************** PROPOSAL ************** >What I am opening up to discussion is a proposal to split comp.windows.x into >comp.windows.x.server, comp.windows.x.client, and comp.windows.x.misc, to >correspond with the way X is architected. > >comp.windows.x.server Discussions about X Window servers >comp.windows.x.clients Discussions about X Window clients/applications >comp.windows.x.misc Discussions about X Window not fitting into the > above two catagories > I like the original split idea better because I don't write X stuff or really even use it much but I do want to keep my software up to date for those who do use it. I want to know about all bugs and fixes and I don't really care about "how to write a widget for ..." r$ mentioned a very real problem with splitting it at all and that is the fact that it is gatewayed to the X mailing list (in both directions I believe). I also see no need for a misc group when comp.windows.x would fill that catageory just fine. How much of the readership depends on the mailing list and couldn't easily switch to reading the newsgroup? (by not having news or not getting c.w.x). Perhaps the mailing list is not that necessary since we have an actual group for it. --Bill Davidson
hvr%kimba@Sun.COM (Heather Rose) (03/23/89)
In article <564@peritek.UUCP> dig@peritek.UUCP (Dave Gotwisner) writes: > > I agree, comp.windows.x should split it up. I am cross posting this >to comp.windows.x to include the entire group since c.w.x readers are the >ones this most affects (as opposed to news.groups). I personally don't think >the break should be on bugs/not bugs, but on client/server. sounds good to me. Heather