mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) (02/26/89)
I've only been on this newsgroup for 5 months, but I've noticed that
there are a lot of people that read this group that don't have both an
ST and an IBM. Thus, either the ST or the IBM binary/source postings
are useless (depending on which machine you have). Therefore, I think
that it would be a good idea to split up comp.os.minix into 5 groups:
comp.binaries.minix.ibm - IBM Minix binary postings.
comp.binaries.minix.st - Atari ST Minix binary postings.
comp.sources.minix.ibm - IBM Minix source postings.
comp.sources.minix.st - Atari ST Minix source postings.
comp.os.minix - Current comp.os.minix group, but
without binary or source postings.
The binary and sources groups wouldn't have to be moderated, or they
could be moderated by a "mirror" that just packs up all submissions with
appropriate headers, or they could be moderated by a real, live, human
moderator.
Note that this is NOT a formal call for votes. It is an attempt to
gauge the net's feelings about such a split.
Also note that I have neither the time nor the resources to moderate a
group, so the moderators (if any) would have to be someone other than
me.
--
Marc Unangst
UUCP : mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us
UUCP bang : ...!uunet!sharkey!mudos!mju
UUCP bang alt.: ...!{ames, rutgers}!mailrus!clip!mudos!mju
Internet : mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.uswilly@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Willy Konijnenberg) (02/27/89)
In article <109.24078AE4@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes: > comp.binaries.minix.ibm - IBM Minix binary postings. > comp.binaries.minix.st - Atari ST Minix binary postings. > comp.sources.minix.ibm - IBM Minix source postings. > comp.sources.minix.st - Atari ST Minix source postings. > comp.os.minix - Current comp.os.minix group, but > without binary or source postings. I think this is overdoing it a bit. 1. I would prefer to *discourage* binary postings. If you have a program that compiles on minix, post the source! There are, of course, these rare occasions where a program is usefull, can run on minix, but won't compile on minix. 2. Minix is unix, unix is supposed to encourage portable programming. Most sources should work on both PC, ST, Amiga, Transputer, 32032, or any other port of minix. If different architectures require minor modifications, then produce a single source with appropriate ifdefs, instead of different sources for every architecture. If source is not portable, then it must: be part of the kernel be a system administration tool contain bugs So, *IF* we want to split, 2 groups should be enough. One for sources and the like, the other for discussions, ideas, questions, etc. I don't know if we really need to split. Any ideas? -- Willy Konijnenberg <willy@idca.tds.philips.nl>
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/28/89)
In article <109.24078AE4@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes: >... either the ST or the IBM binary/source postings >are useless (depending on which machine you have)... Well, I'd call the binary postings near-useless no matter what machine you have, but I'm one of the old "gotta have the sources" types... If you are concerned about fun things like viruses, there is good reason for this attitude, mind you. The bulk of the source postings are more or less machine-independent. I'd say put the binaries in comp.binaries.ibm.pc or comp.binaries.atari.st; that's where they belong, since the groups are *not* named c.b.msdos or c.b.tos. The rest can stay here for now. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
greyham@hades.OZ (Greyham Stoney) (02/28/89)
in article <109.24078AE4@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>, mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) says:
:
: comp.binaries.minix.ibm - IBM Minix binary postings.
: comp.binaries.minix.st - Atari ST Minix binary postings.
^^^^^^^^ - How often do binarys get posted anyway????
: comp.sources.minix.ibm - IBM Minix source postings.
: comp.sources.minix.st - Atari ST Minix source postings.
: comp.os.minix - Current comp.os.minix group, but
: without binary or source postings.
This seems a little silly..... we have an O/S with the FULL source, and we
want to post binaries?.
--
# Greyham Stoney: (disclaimer not necessary: I'm obviously irresponsible)
# greyham@hades.nucleus.oz - Ausonics. +61 2 428-6476 (my_phone@work)
# replys WILL bounce; try: greyham@utscsd.oz - Uni of Technology, Sydney.
# WARNING: Reply mail is VERY broken at present. Any replys to utscsd.oz plsbds@lzaz.ATT.COM (B.SZABLAK) (02/28/89)
In article <198@ssp11.idca.tds.philips.nl>, willy@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Willy Konijnenberg) writes: > If source is not portable, then it must: > be part of the kernel > be a system administration tool > contain bugs Well, there are some tools that are not system administration tools, but still have machine dependencies. For example, the Minix ST debugger I posted 2 months ago (mdb) includes a 68000 disassembler, and knowledge of some kernel data structures. Probably 50% would have to be discarded in porting it to the PC. By the way, is there any interest in a repost? There have been significant bug fixes and minor enhancements to the original post. The ptrace() system call patches (part of the recent post by Howard Johnson) is required. Finally, I haven't seen that many binaries go by on this newsgroup, and then usually with good reason (If its too big to compile on a basic .5 Meg ST for example, a binary is nice - gcc comes to mind [even 1 Meg won't do]). I hope people aren't confusing compressed and uuencoded source postings as binaries...
APEARSON%WAYNEST1.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Patrick B. Haggood) (03/01/89)
On the discussion of discouraging binaries: On on hand, I am kinda lazy in implimenting tools (I like making applications , not boot-strapping every utility that floats my way, killing hours just to get a seconds-saving convenience utility working on my system). However.... Minix is a good OS, but it is primarily a LEARNING OS. That is, people should be drawn to it because they wish to understand it (I was). If I wanted another OS-in-the-box, I woulda bought OS/9 or Idris (yauc, yet another U**x clone). S o the posting of source is consistent with the Minix ideal of available source for understanding by the user. Therefore, I endorse the posting of source, and only posting binaries on very very implicit circumstances.
ncoverby@ndsuvax.UUCP (Glen Overby) (03/04/89)
In article <109.24078AE4@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes: >I've only been on this newsgroup for 5 months, but I've noticed that >there are a lot of people that read this group that don't have both an >ST and an IBM. Thus, either the ST or the IBM binary/source postings >are useless (depending on which machine you have). Therefore, I think >that it would be a good idea to split up comp.os.minix into 5 groups: There have been many calls for a split, and I expect that there will be many more, and until the volume and disorganization gets much more severe than it is now, they will all get shot down. I see the following types of postings in this group: (1) questions, problems (2) bug reports and fixes (3) new "unofficial" programs (i.e. not from Andy or Johan) (4) official updates (from Andy or Johan) Splitting the questions and problems into separate groups for the Atari ST and IBM PC would be counterproductive, I think. We are both running one base system (the Minix sources) and many of the problems will exist in both systems. I, for one, would read both groups even though I am stuck running only MINIX-PC. If the groups were split, I think that there would be a lot of crossposting. Bug reports fall into the same category as (1). Both groups should remain unmoderated. It would nice to make separate groups out of the last two categories, IF they were moderated. I don't think there is the volume to merit a group for both machines, and I don't think there is much use to! Anybody halfway serious about Minix SHOULD be tracking both groups to see what the other half of the brain is doing. Why subscribe to a mild form of facism by have a moderator? Well, the postings can be serialized so that receivers can be assured that they've gotten everything, non-source postings can be eliminated ("straight signal"), and archives can be maintained with a consistent organization. As an archive site maintainer, I find myself doing a lot of the work which I believe a moderator would do, but I work in bursts, when I have time, normally on a long weekend from school. Thats not too good for a Usenet moderator. The latter category would fit in somewhat similar to comp.bugs.4bsd.ucb-fixes; that is, ONLY fixes from Andy and Johan. So far, they haven't been doing these updates that often and that group could be merged with a moderated Minix sources group, probably making Andy and Johan sub-moderators with posting privileges (sort of like the Australian sub-moderator for comp.sources.unix). Binaries should be banished from the group except in special cases, one being programs which CANNOT be compiled under Minix (like elle and kermit). I consider the recent binary postings all "noise". Give me the sources and I'll compile the things myself! You don't have to be RMS to want sources! In summary, I think the content of comp.os.minix fits into two categories: discussions and bug reports and sources and updates. Even though two different machines are being discussed, they have a LOT in common and do benefit from being discussed in one place; the volume isn't really that high, and rn "kill" files do a nice job of eliminating fluff. Sources, on the other hand, would benefit from another group WITH a moderator. Without one, it would be mere chaos and we'd be no better off than we are now. -- Glen Overby <ncoverby@plains.nodak.edu> uunet!ndsuvax!ncoverby ncoverby@ndsuvax (Bitnet)