S90405184%HSEPM1.HSE.NL@cunyvm.cuny.edu (03/04/91)
Hello, Paul Nothover, paul.northover@dundee.ncr.com writes: The main problem with sub-dividing is that many of us receive comp.os.minix via a mail relay ("LISTSERV@vm1.NoDak.EDU"). If we were still to receive all the postings following a sub-division then additional mail-relays would have to be set up. In addition it is very difficult to draw a line between what is specific to a particular machine and what is of general interest. For instance many utilities written for 386 machines that will not run on 8086/80286 machines will work on 68000 based machines. IMHO if comp.os.minix was split up, and the problem of the mail-relays was overcome, then a large majority of people would subscribe to all of the sub groups, thus defeating the object of the sub-division. Ok, sure someone has to set up all those extra servers. But I think it will also have it's reward in reduced net-traffic. That, of course, should be one of the major arguments towards the people that set up and maintain those servers and (maybe) the networks. My opinion is that there should be only two lists, one for sources, to which (maybe) noone subscribes (hold on, first hear me out), which would only need one server set up. The other list would be for discussion *and* announcements of new additions to the sources list. Then everybody can get whatever (s)he wants from the sources list (of course, the server keeps the files in his archive) by ftp or whatever. This way you keep network traffic down by not sending the (large) uuencoded files to ppl who just throw them down dev/null like me) and second, also people with small mailboxes (also like me, I only have 500Kb) will be able to stay away from their computer for a few days. Then, Andy Tanenbaum writes: I think that splitting along CPU lines is not a good idea. I am convinced that people with an X CPU will post general information to comp.os.minix.X just because all they ever think about is X. Thus everyone will have to read everything to avoid missing anything. No win. As to a sources group, it is a possibility, but I'd be surprised if there were many people who would read one but not the other. If there are such people, please post messages explaining why. The main advantage of splitting is to make the administration easier, i.e., the archive of the source group would have all the sources. On the other hand, the people running the archives could store the sources in the archives separately, even with one group. If we do split, I have a small preference for comp.os.minix.sources rather than comp.sources.minix, i.e., it is "our" group. I think the sources group should be unmoderated. There is no reason a priori to think that people will post discussions to the sources group. If someone does, I propose a way to make the point that this is a protocol violation: will all 44,000 readers send that person a polite message asking not to do it again. That will break his mail system and give him negative feedback from his postmaster. Before starting on a voting procedure, which should follow the normal net news rules, I think we should have a discussion here to see what we think. My own feeling is that with only 20-30 messages a day, a split is not really necessary, but if there is an overwhelming feeling for a separate sources group, ok. I agree, splitting up among cpu types does not make any sense at all. Well, I'm one of those ppl that would only subscribe to the discussions list, as explained above. Of course, the opinions expressed are my own, but the idea for only one sources listserver is not my own. I got it from the bitnet lists. On bitnet there are different lists for the amiga. There are even separate binaries and sources lists. JEG Jan Evert van Grootheest, S90405184@HSEPM1.HSE.NL
ajm@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Tony McGregor) (03/06/91)
Perhaps we should have a comp.os.minix.spliting-the-list subgroup?