ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) (03/26/91)
Here is a fragment from the arbitron ratings. The interesting thing here (although I have peculiar taste) is that the existence of a newsgroup with the name a.b apparently does not prohibit one with the name a.b.c. When the 45 gigabit fiber net is in place, it will be possible to have a group named alt.sex.pictures.moving without name conflicts. 1 13606.2 307 35.91 7.1% 7.1% alt.sex.pictures (5.5) 18 1624.3 1027 4.29 0.8% 24.7% alt.sex (2.3) Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl) P.S. In case you missed all the symbolism here, what I am driving at is that if we must have two groups, then comp.os.minix and comp.os.minix.software would not be forbidden by network rules.
wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (03/27/91)
Andy Tanenbaum wrote: > [stuff about the existence of certain alt.* groups] > >P.S. In case you missed all the symbolism here, what I am driving at is >that if we must have two groups, then comp.os.minix and comp.os.minix.software >would not be forbidden by network rules. Although I agree with you, you picked a poor example. The alt.* hierarchy admits to few if any rules at all. It is for most purposes an anarchy. A better example might have been comp.ai and its various subgroups... Bill Bogstad
waltje@minixug.mugnet.org (Fred 'The Rebel' van Kempen) (03/30/91)
In article <9488@star.cs.vu.nl>, ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) wrote: > Here is a fragment from the arbitron ratings. The interesting thing here > (although I have peculiar taste) is that the existence of a newsgroup with the > name a.b apparently does not prohibit one with the name a.b.c. When the > 45 gigabit fiber net is in place, it will be possible to have a group > named alt.sex.pictures.moving without name conflicts. > > > 1 13606.2 307 35.91 7.1% 7.1% alt.sex.pictures (5.5) > 18 1624.3 1027 4.29 0.8% 24.7% alt.sex (2.3) > > Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl) > > P.S. In case you missed all the symbolism here, what I am driving at is > that if we must have two groups, then comp.os.minix and comp.os.minix.software > would not be forbidden by network rules. Right. So, again, I vote for a "comp.os.minix.software", IF any group for sources/patches/binaries is to be created. This name covers it all, eh?? Fred.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (04/02/91)
OK, the following names for a non-moderated group have been suggested: comp.os.minix.sources comp.os.minix.code comp.os.minix.software If there is no obvious consensus, the vote will look like this: Part 1: should there be a non-moderated sources group as a companion to the existing comp.os.minix? Part 2: The name of this group should be: comp.os.minix.sources comp.os.minix.code comp.os.minix.software Please pick one name, and an alternate if one of the other names is acceptable. This alternate will be used to break a tie: if the votes look like this: .sources 40% .code 40% .software 20% In this case, the alternates from .software will be used to break the tie between .sources and .code (this is a simplified version of the Single Transferrable Vote system, AKA the Australian System). I will arrange the ballot to make for convenient voting via "Reply". -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) (04/02/91)
In article <71FA.8@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > Part 1: should there be a non-moderated sources group as a > companion to the existing comp.os.minix? > > Part 2: The name of this group should be: Is it legal to to vote No on 1 and still vote on 2? Is this ethical? I'm going to vote no on the split, but if everyone else wants it, I am inclined to put my two cents in on the name and vote for comp.os.minix.code with .software as second choice. Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
nall@cs.utk.edu (John Nall) (04/03/91)
In article <9524@star.cs.vu.nl> ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes: >In article <71FA.8@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >> Part 1: should there be a non-moderated sources group as a >> companion to the existing comp.os.minix? >> >> Part 2: The name of this group should be: > >Is it legal to to vote No on 1 and still vote on 2? Is this ethical? >I'm going to vote no on the split, but if everyone else wants it, I am >inclined to put my two cents in on the name and vote for comp.os.minix.code >with .software as second choice. > > >Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl) I certainly hope it is both legal and ethical, since that is what I am going to do. It is to be interpreted as "I vote against splitting the group into pieces, but if I am outvoted and it is split anyway, then I vote for the name blah, blah, with second choice bleah, bleah". John Nall
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (04/03/91)
In article <9524@star.cs.vu.nl> ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes: > Is it legal to to vote No on 1 and still vote on 2? Is this ethical? Yes, yes, in fact it's encouraged. Past multi-phase votes have foundered on this very point (and I have been among the people flaming them). -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"