mason@utcsri.UUCP (Dave Mason) (11/04/85)
I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now
this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like
unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to
have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc.
I said all this a couple of months ago, got about thirty responses,
only to be told "you didn't go about it the right way", which I think
is a little crazy to be told after the fact. I now understand that the
right way to do it is to swamp the net. So if you want net.os, use your
'f' (not 'F') key NOW!
--
Usenet: {dalcs dciem garfield musocs qucis sask titan trigraph ubc-vision
utzoo watmath allegra cornell decvax decwrl ihnp4 uw-beaver}
!utcsri!mason Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRI/ Ryerson Polytech
CSNET: mason@Toronto
ARPA: mason%Toronto@CSNet-Relay
BITNET: FCTY7053@RYERSON.BITNETbroehl@watdcsu.UUCP (Bernie Roehl) (11/05/85)
<bug line> Agreed, a net.os makes a lot of sense. I used to read all the Unix-specific groups, but have largely given up on them because of their high volume and lack of information relevent to what I'm doing. A newsgroup for discussing operating system architecture and design would be very worthwhile.
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (11/06/85)
> I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now > this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like > unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to > have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc. Well, recently I have apparently been advocating newsgroup proliferation, which isn't really true at all (it's just that they always want to cancel particularly useful newsgroups, and keep around the ones where they spend all the time talking about toilet paper, arguing about whether single people have the right to have opinions about raising children, etc.). However, I think an OS newsgroup would be a good idea. In particular, it would allow (I would hope) discussion about more theoretical OS topics, rather than a hundred postings on yet another way to hack up Unix. As for unix-wizards, I gave up reading it long ago because it is suited only to concrete dialogue; at the slightest suggestion of abstract thought, a hundred proud hackers will jump on you, claiming with strange arguments-by-example that you are "wrong". Fortunately, a lot of good, reasonably abstract discussion goes on in net.arch. What we need is something more on the order of net.arch's usually civilized, usually moderately open-minded, discussion. Personally I would tend to think that net.arch.os would achieve this end (both tending to reduce the volume and improve the quality), but that doesn't matter really; it does seem ironic that on a network that claims to be a network of computer scientists*, there is no discussion of operating systems. *Oh... maybe it doesn't. -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: Ofc: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer Home: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
ksbszabo@watvlsi.UUCP (Kevin Szabo) (11/06/85)
This is my vote for net.os . I agree that most of the operating system discussion is distributed through net.unix-wizards and net.arch, and possibly a few other less appropriate groups. It would be nice to centralize it (centralize the discussion about distributed O/S? what a concept :-) Kevin -- Kevin Szabo' watmath!watvlsi!ksbszabo (U of W VLSI Group, Waterloo, Ont, Canada)
c8p-bd@ucbholden.BERKELEY.EDU (Adam J. Richter) (11/07/85)
Another YES vote for net.os. Adam J. Richter
wegrzyn@encore.UUCP (Chuck Wegrzyn) (11/08/85)
I for one would like to see a category for operating system discussions. I find most of the stuff in net.unix rather primitive and restrictive. I was hoping that net.research would spawn operating system discussions, but no such luck. Count my vote for net.os Chuck Wegrzyn
jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal) (11/08/85)
Yes to net.os Jeff Siegal - MIT EECS (jbs@mit-eddie)
rpw3@redwood.UUCP (Rob Warnock) (11/08/85)
I think that "net.arch" would do for O/S topics, for now, with a
possible "net.arch.os" if the volume or specialization get out of
hand. (I also prefer "net.lang.compilers" to "net.compilers"...)
I agree that Unix isn't everything, especially when talking about
practical or theoretical issues that Unix has neglected (such as
good software interrupts (NOT merely "signals")).
Rob Warnock
Systems Architecture Consultant
UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax!dual}!fortune!redwood!rpw3
DDD: (415)572-2607
USPS: 627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403ddl@tardis.UUCP (Dan Lanciani) (11/08/85)
I too vote for an os group. We need a place to discuss non-implementation specific operating system issues. Dan Lanciani ddl@tardis
ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (0058) (11/09/85)
> I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now > this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like > unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to > have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc. > > Usenet: {dalcs dciem garfield musocs qucis sask titan trigraph ubc-vision > utzoo watmath allegra cornell decvax decwrl ihnp4 uw-beaver} > !utcsri!mason Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRI/ Ryerson Polytech I think it is an excellent idea. ucbvax!ucdavis!vega!ccrdave
geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (11/09/85)
All right, you guys have sold me. Put me on the pro-net.os list. By my
count that's a rousing eight of us now.
--
Geoff Kuenning
{hplabs,ihnp4}!trwrb!desint!geofflien@osu-eddie.UUCP (Nan Lien) (11/10/85)
> I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now > this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like > unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to > have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc. > Here is my vote for net.os. Yao-Nan Lien Department of Computer and Information Science Ohio State University 2036, Neil Ave. Mall Columbus, Ohio 43210-1277 Tel 614 422-5236 CSNet : lien@ohio-state.CSNET UUCP : osu-eddie!lien@cbosgd.UUCP or cbosgd!osu-eddie!lien
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (11/10/85)
In article <1594@utcsri.UUCP> mason@utcsri.UUCP (Dave mason) writes: >I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. I like the idea. Here's my "YES"-vote. \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Im all lost in the Supermarket I can no longer shop happily I came in here for that special offer Guaranteed personality (c) The Clash, 1979
herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) (11/10/85)
In article <10100@tardis.UUCP> ddl@tardis.UUCP (Dan Lanciani) writes: > I too vote for an os group. We need a place to discuss >non-implementation specific operating system issues. me too. i end up discussing and posting OS stuff to net.arch because it's the closest thing to a net.os. as an operating system designer and implementor, exchange of ideas in this area helps me in my job as well as helping other people. Herb Chong... I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH UUCP: {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie CSNET: herbie.yktvmh@ibm-sj.csnet ARPA: herbie.yktvmh.ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa ======================================================================== DISCLAIMER: what you just read was produced by pouring lukewarm tea for 42 seconds onto 9 people chained to 6 Ouiji boards.
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (11/11/85)
A YES vote here for net.os. J.B. Robinson
scc@jenny.UUCP (Stephen Crawley) (11/11/85)
One vote from me + at least 5 proxy votes from other people. -- Steve
steve@basser.oz (Stephen Michael Russell) (11/11/85)
I support the call for a separate group for discussion of OS topics.
bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) (11/12/85)
> I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now > this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like > unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to > have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc. > > I said all this a couple of months ago, got about thirty responses, > only to be told "you didn't go about it the right way", which I think > is a little crazy to be told after the fact. I now understand that the > right way to do it is to swamp the net. So if you want net.os, use your > 'f' (not 'F') key NOW! A basic fallacy in the logic of having existing net traffic indicate the need for a new newsgroup is that current postings are often suppressed due to the inadequacy of existing forums. Particularly in the case of net.os: is one to believe that an IMPARTIAL discussion of an operating system principle which is NOT incorportated in Unix today could POSSIBLY take place in net.unix-wizards? I would VERY MUCH like to see a net.os, and the articles I might post to such a group are NOT being posted ANYWHERE yet. So I think this will result in an increase in overall net traffic, and I think that, in this case, that is good. I would imagine the situation was probably similar in the case of net.database. -- - bc - ..!{seismo,topaz,gatech,nbires,ihnp4}!ut-sally!cyb-eng!bc (512) 835-2266
kenyon@nmtvax.UUCP (11/15/85)
One more vote for net.os. There is more to life than just Unix(tm) (not too much, but there is more...
blaine@nmtvax.UUCP (11/15/85)
I am for it. I also feel we should have a net.micro.performance This would better segregate the name callers from those of us who use references. -- Blaine Gaither ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!blaine Computer Science Department blaine@nmt
arturo@humming.UUCP (Arturo Perez) (11/16/85)
In article <783@cyb-eng.UUCP>, bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) writes: > > I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now > > this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like > > unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to > > have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc. > > > > I said all this a couple of months ago, got about thirty responses, > > only to be told "you didn't go about it the right way", which I think > > is a little crazy to be told after the fact. I now understand that the > > right way to do it is to swamp the net. So if you want net.os, use your > > 'f' (not 'F') key NOW!
ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (11/18/85)
Sure, but I'd rather have a moderated group, mod.computers.operating-systems. If more people vote moderated than unmoderated, does that mean anything? - Ralph
dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright) (11/18/85)
net.os vote: YES
andy@cheviot.uucp (Andy Linton) (11/19/85)
I would like to support net.os for two reasons. I think a discussion group for os topics is a good idea and it might remove some of the non unix topics from unix and unix-wizards. This is YES vote!
john@dcl-cs.UUCP (J.R.N.) (11/19/85)
I suggested the need for a (distributed) operating systems group about 6 months ago. There was lots of interested people (including a number of "top researchers" in the field - I still have the evidence!!). However, I still couldn't convince any of the net administrators to set up the group and so gave up after several attempts. I'm glad someone else somewhere else has taken over! (All the best...) -- UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!john| Post: University of Lancaster, DARPA: john%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Department of Computing, JANET: john@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK. Phone: +44 524 65201 Ext. 4146 | LA1 4YR Project: Cosmos Distributed Operating Systems Research
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (11/20/85)
I think it's pretty clear we need a net.os and a net.os.os9.
What isn't clear is whether these groups should be moderated.
Perhaps there should be mod.os and mod.os.os9. If they are
to be moderated, do we have moderators for them?
An unmoderated net.os would probably become very much like net.arch.
(I don't read net.arch so I have no idea if this is good or bad.)
Is there someone out there collecting poll results? If so, would
that person please send me mail letting me know the results so far?
Marktemplate@megatek.UUCP (Template) (11/21/85)
> I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now > this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like > unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to > have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc. > Here is my vote for net.os.
joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) (11/22/85)
I agree. net.os should be a class of newsgroups, as in
net.os.unix
net.os.unix-wizards
net.os.os9
perhaps even
net.os.vms
since the "vax" news groups tend to look like this.
If we have a hierarchy of net.micro.*, why not operating systems?
--
Joel West (619) 457-9681
CACI, Inc. Federal, 3344 N. Torrey Pines Ct., La Jolla, CA 92037
{cbosgd,ihnp4,pyramid,sdcsvax,ucla-cs}!gould9!joel
gould9!joel@nosc.ARPAjon@nsc.UUCP (Jon Ryshpan) (11/23/85)
In article <188@gould9.UUCP> joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) writes: >I agree. net.os should be a class of newsgroups, as in > net.os.unix > net.os.unix-wizards > net.os.os9 >perhaps even > net.os.vms >since the "vax" news groups tend to look like this. > >If we have a hierarchy of net.micro.*, why not operating systems? >-- I think so too. This looks like the best proposal i've seen so far about this. -- Jonathan Ryshpan {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!jon nsc!jon@decwrl.ARPA Let justice be done though the heavens fall.
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (11/29/85)
In article <1859@watdcsu.UUCP> haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) writes: >In article <1594@utcsri.UUCP> mason@utcsri.UUCP (Dave mason) writes: >>I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Yes, I'm not happy with the fact that it upsets people interested in the 68000 processor when OS-9 people talk about OS-9. The only thing I'm worried about is whether adding a *lot* of news groups adds to system overhead substantially in any way. I believe we had a volunteer previously to moderate an OS-9 group if necessary and/or provide archiving. This was a while back and I can't recall who. Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6
ken@turtlevax.UUCP (Ken Turkowski) (12/02/85)
I'm not one bit interested in operating systems, other than they are a
necessary evil to accomplish a real-world task. OS weenies need a place
where they can talk about queueing statistics and other such ominous
stuff that really has no place in net.micro (microprocessors) and
net.arch (computer architecture).
--
Ken Turkowski @ CIMLINC (formerly CADLINC), Menlo Park, CA
UUCP: {amd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,spar}!turtlevax!ken
ARPA: turtlevax!ken@DECWRL.DEC.COMrrr@milo.UUCP (Richard Rush) (12/02/85)
> In article <783@cyb-eng.UUCP>, bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) writes: > > > I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now > > > this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like > > > unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to > > > have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc. > > > > > > I said all this a couple of months ago, got about thirty responses, > > > only to be told "you didn't go about it the right way", which I think > > > is a little crazy to be told after the fact. I now understand that the > > > right way to do it is to swamp the net. So if you want net.os, use your > > > 'f' (not 'F') key NOW! YES FOR NET.OS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (12/03/85)
I would like to add my vote for net.os. (Who is taking votes so I can
mail to them?) There is a need for a newsgroup for more fundamental
principles of operating systems. The current o/s related groups
(net.arch, net.unix-wizards, net.micro.*) don't meet that need.
If no one is willing to create the group, perhaps a mailing list can be
created instead. I will have to check the ARPAnet list-of-lists to see
if an existing mailing list covers those topics, and if it isn't, I can
run the list (or find someone else who can). If such a list exists I'll
see if people on UUCP can be added.
Meanwhile, consider this a vote for net.os.
--
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
gds@mit-eddie.mit.edulevy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (12/04/85)
In article <686@milo.UUCP>, rrr@milo.UUCP (Richard Rush) writes: >> In article <783@cyb-eng.UUCP>, bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) writes: >> > > I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now >> > > this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like >> > > unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to >> > > have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc. >> > > >> > > I said all this a couple of months ago, got about thirty responses, >> > > only to be told "you didn't go about it the right way", which I think >> > > is a little crazy to be told after the fact. I now understand that the >> > > right way to do it is to swamp the net. So if you want net.os, use your >> > > 'f' (not 'F') key NOW! > >YES FOR NET.OS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I SECOND THE MOTION! -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy
mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mark D. Freeman) (12/04/85)
It makes far more sense to me to carry on a discussion of IBM-PC networks (Novell, etc.) in a seperate newsgroup, rather than overload the regular IBM group with this sort of thing. Perhaps a subgroup for machine specific net under that machine's regular newsgroup would be appropriate.
ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (12/06/85)
In article <622@mit-eddie.UUCP> gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) writes: >I would like to add my vote for net.os. (Who is taking votes so I can >mail to them?) There is a need for a newsgroup for more fundamental ... Well, it was at our site for a day, I posted a message, then it was rmgrouped. What's the deal? - Ralph
ken@turtlevax.UUCP (Ken Turkowski) (12/09/85)
I vote for net.os. Where else would people discuss the successor to UNIX?
--
UNIX is a trademark of Bell Labs and/or AT&T
--
Ken Turkowski @ CIMLINC, Menlo Park, CA
UUCP: {amd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,spar}!turtlevax!ken
ARPA: turtlevax!ken@DECWRL.DEC.COMkwan@smeagol.UUCP (Richard_Kwan) (12/10/85)
In article <783@cyb-eng.UUCP>, bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) writes: > I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. ... ellipsis ... > So if you want net.os, use your 'f' (not 'F') key NOW! Good grief... are we still tallying votes? YES FOR NET.OS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
alw@mit-eddie.UUCP (Alan Wu) (12/12/85)
There are enough interesting topics related to more than one operating system to justify having a separate newgroup. Having these topics buried under a Un*x-specific group artificially restricts some of the debates and discussions to just the Un*x diehards, and tends to exclude more diverse and interesting viewpoints. For example, "comparative anatomy" of different os's is a way for the best features of a lesser-known os to become known and possibly incorporated into later versions of existing or to-be-written os's. Topics such as human engineering, relative performance, novice-vs-expert users, keyboard-vs-icon commands, and so forth could attract a wider audience if there was a forum dedicated to such discussions.
madmonk@chinet.UUCP (William M. Fischer) (12/15/85)
Indeed, another yes for net.os! -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Nemo me impune lacessit" Bill Fischer madmonk@chinet.UUCP =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
kenyon@nmtvax.UUCP (12/15/85)
>>YES FOR NET.OS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >I SECOND THE MOTION! I third the motion. -- Robert Kenyon p / ...ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!kenyon / kenyon@nmt / g New Mexico Tech, Home of the world's fastest sheep, "Fluffy, the Wonder Ewe" 1984-85 World Champ!
gilbert@aimmi.UUCP (Gilbert Cockton) (12/16/85)
I vote for net.os
ddl@tardis.UUCP (Dan Lanciani) (12/17/85)
Since we are starting over, I again cast my vote FOR net.os. Dan Lanciani ddl@tardis.*
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (12/18/85)
> Since we are starting over, I again cast my vote FOR net.os.
ARGH! NO!!!!
For the 357th time, calling for a vote in a public newsgroup read by
everyone is NOT PROPER PRACTICE. Everyone will have to read hundreds
of silly vote messages, when most people really are not interested at
all. The way to conduct a vote by the net is for someone to volunteer
to collect votes, and then everyone else *MAILS* their votes to him.
When the flurry dies down, he then posts a *summary* of the results.
Can we get this pollution off the technical newsgroups?!?
And by the way, one does not create a newsgroup by voting on it. One
creates a newsgroup by demonstrating a substantial volume of traffic in
an existing newsgroup that would like to be rid of it. For lack of
anything better, net.unix or net.micro would be the obvious places for
this one. Or maybe net.misc. It is not enough to have lots of people
who are interested in *reading* a newsgroup, it is necessary to have
people who will *write* for it. Over and over again, groups have
been created as the result of popular enthusiasm, only to fizzle and
die because nobody ever submitted anything to them after the first week.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryken@turtlevax.UUCP (Ken Turkowski) (12/19/85)
I forty-second the motion for a net.os!!!
--
Ken Turkowski @ CIMLINC, Menlo Park, CA
UUCP: {amd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,spar}!turtlevax!ken
ARPA: turtlevax!ken@DECWRL.DEC.COMhgill@idec.UUCP (H. Gill) (12/20/85)
I vote for NET.OS too !!.
bob@eed092.UUCP (prototype account) (12/21/85)
> >>YES FOR NET.OS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >I SECOND THE MOTION! > I third the motion. I fourth the motion. Robert Harold Ford Motor Co. EED DPTC B-206 17000 Rotunda Dr. Dearborn, MI 48121-6010