Paul.Northover@dundee.ncr.com (03/02/91)
Hi,
I think this one should be on the FAQ :-)
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.
Paul Northover <Paul.Northover@Dundee.NCR.COM>
NCR Self Service Systems
Dundee
ScotlandECO861771@ecostat.aau.dk (03/04/91)
The main problem for me is all the sources that comes on this list. I have a fixed amount of disk space, and sometimes have problems with too many large files floatinbg in. I suggest there should be a division in comp.os.minix and comp.os.minix.source. If people want the sources they can either get them by ftp or by using a mail server, or they can subscribe to the list. If all software is announced in the comp.os.minix group, then I think there will be a lot of people who only reads this group, and it will thus limit the net traffic to some degree. Also, to form a new subgroup there must be called for a discussion, and then voting is done after a specific period. But there doesn't seem to be that big interest on this yet. Povl H. Pedersen eco861771@ecostat.aau.dk / hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu
lunnon@qut.edu.au (03/05/91)
In article <46267@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, Paul.Northover@dundee.ncr.com writes: > Hi, > > I think this one should be on the FAQ :-) > > 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. > Should this be a topic for the FAQ list :-) For my 2c worth, the only worthwhile split is to get the sources into its own group. Yes, everyone would subscribe to that too but at least it would be useful to have the sources separated from the talk. I at least would no longer have to extract all sources and archive them locally in many cases. BOB R.Lunnon@qut.edu.au > > Paul Northover <Paul.Northover@Dundee.NCR.COM> > NCR Self Service Systems > Dundee > Scotland
darius@edm.isac.CA (Darius S. Naqvi) (03/05/91)
In article <1991Mar4.110517.24330@qut.edu.au> lunnon@qut.edu.au writes: >For my 2c worth, the only worthwhile split is to get the sources into its >own group. Yes, everyone would subscribe to that too but at least it would >be useful to have the sources separated from the talk. I at least would no >longer have to extract all sources and archive them locally in many cases. > > BOB > R.Lunnon@qut.edu.au > I agree. It is very easy to archive a group using C news; just modify the line for the group in your `explist'. If all the sources were in one group, then a site could just archive that group and be reasonably certain of getting all the sources, and nothing but the sources, without constantly monitoring everything. -- Darius S. Naqvi mail:darius@edm.isac.ca ISA Corp. uucp:{uunet,alberta}!ncc!isagate!darius Edmonton, Alberta, Canada phone:(403) 420-8081