wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) (02/18/86)
I've been trying to figure out just what the difference is between "net.news.sa" and "net.news.adm", and why there should be two groups instead of just one. The same stuff seems to get cross-posted to both groups; is there anyone out there that reads one and not the other? The info in the master "groups" list isn't too helpful: > net.news.adm Comments directed to news administrators. > net.news.sa Comments directed to system administrators. Since these are subgroups of "net.news", the topics discussed therein would only be news-system-related ones, so the "sa" group would be, it appears, devoted to topics related to the news system, but directed toward system administrators but *not* to news administrators, on those systems where the offices are not combined. This seems rather narrowly targeted, doesn't it? Since the traffic in these is light, this isn't worthy of a crusade or even much thought, but it's something I've wondered for some years, and I don't recall seeing discussion on the topic. Is there some specific justification for there being two distinct groups? Will
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (02/19/86)
Agreed! net.news.sa and net.news.adm should be merged, preferably as
net.news.adm, which seems to be a superset of the .sa group.
Michael C. Berch
News adminstrator - styx
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA
UUCP: {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcbmark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (02/20/86)
In article <1067@brl-smoke.ARPA> wmartin@brl-smoke.UUCP writes: >> net.news.adm Comments directed to news administrators. >> net.news.sa Comments directed to system administrators. There is an important difference. The system administrator is not necessarily the netnews administrator. The two people are the same on most sites, but there are many sites where, as a condition for getting news, some other user or staff person had to agree to run the netnews software. There are even sites where an ordinary user put up netnews because the computer center doesn't want to mess with it. >Since these are subgroups of "net.news", the topics discussed therein >would only be news-system-related ones, Actually, it's net.news.sa because there is no other group that's well suited to be the parent, and because net.news tends to be better distributed than many other net.all newsgroups, so it reaches more places. Mark
jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) (02/25/86)
In article <1848@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: >In article <1067@brl-smoke.ARPA> wmartin@brl-smoke.UUCP writes: >>> net.news.adm Comments directed to news administrators. >>> net.news.sa Comments directed to system administrators. > >There is an important difference. The system administrator is not >necessarily the netnews administrator. The two people are the same >on most sites, but there are many sites where, as a condition for >getting news, some other user or staff person had to agree to run >the netnews software. There's an important difference in principle. But there is NO difference in practice. System administrators tend to discuss their problems in net.unix-wizards or other lists. I've never seen an article in net.news.sa that would be inappropriate for net.news.adm. In short, if what you are saying is true, then net.news.sa has never been used correctly. -- - Joe Buck <ihnp4!pesnta!epimass!jbuck> This sentence is false.
wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) (02/27/86)
I withdraw my comments on the subject -- I was not aware of the true purpose of "net.news.sa", which is really more of a "net.sa" and has therefore a different purpose than "net.news.adm". Sorry about that... "Never mind..." E. Litella Will
dpw@rayssd.UUCP (Darryl P. Wagoner) (02/28/86)
> > In article <1848@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: > >In article <1067@brl-smoke.ARPA> wmartin@brl-smoke.UUCP writes: > >>> net.news.adm Comments directed to news administrators. > >>> net.news.sa Comments directed to system administrators. > > > > There's an important difference in principle. But there is NO difference > in practice. System administrators tend to discuss their problems in > net.unix-wizards or other lists. I've never seen an article in net.news.sa > that would be inappropriate for net.news.adm. In short, if what you > are saying is true, then net.news.sa has never been used correctly. I feel that net.news.sa should be moved to net.unix.sa. -- Darryl Wagoner Raytheon Co.; Portsmouth RI; (401)-847-8000 x4089 ...!decvax!brunix!rayssd!dpw ...!allegra!rayssd!dpw ...!linus!rayssd!dpw
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (03/05/86)
In article <1337@brl-smoke.ARPA> wmartin@brl-smoke.UUCP writes: > I withdraw my comments on the subject -- I was not aware of the true > purpose of "net.news.sa", which is really more of a "net.sa" and has > therefore a different purpose than "net.news.adm". Sorry about that... > > "Never mind..." E. Litella > > Will Yeah, but the problem is that NOBODY ELSE realizes that net.news.sa is really supposed to be net.sa, and thus nothing appropriate is posted there. As things are it's simply a waste of time and energy. Death to net.news.sa!! Greater glory to net.news.adm!! Michael C. Berch News administrator - styx ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb