dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright) (09/03/85)
[This item was originally posted in early August but is being re-posted as,
perhaps due to the ukc UK backbone site holding news during a prolonged
system upgrade in August, it appears not to have gone beyond a few UK sites.
If you replied before, and are not jlm@611b,dan@dlvax2 or geoff@idec,
then please reply again as your mail did not reach me.]
There are many USENET sites which have VMS machines as well as UNIX, so
there is an increasing interest in VMS issues. I therefore propose
(re-propose in fact, as it's been suggested before but not taken up)
the formation of a new group
net.vms
To justify a new group it is necessary to show that there is a specific
need not met by other groups, to show that there would be enough
postings to be useful, and to have a positive reponse to a vote for the
group's creation.
The volume of vms-related postings in groups such as net.sources,
net.wanted, net.micro, net.decus and even net.general seem to me to
demonstrate the first two criteria (who could claim that the series of
postings on clearing the screen in VMS would be of any interest to
non-VMS lovers ???). Having VMS issues splattered over existing groups
is an annoyance both to people interested who have to read so many
groups, and even more, I am sure, to those who never want to go near
VMS but have to keep skipping VMS articles.
Another advantage - epecially now several postings are quite long
sources - would be that those sites with no VMS VAXen either locally or
downstream could drop vms-related postings.
If net.vms becomes successful then fa.info-vax could be gatewayed into it.
Now to the VOTE. spaf@gatech has agreed to add net.vms IFF there is
sufficient support for it. So VOTE NOW - by mail to me, I will count
results (+ summarise any useful comments) and report to spaf@gatech and
to the net.
*** Add new group net.vms YES | NO ***
David Wright dww@stl
....seismo!mcvax!ukc!stc!stl!dwwsasaki@harvard.ARPA (Marty Sasaki) (09/05/85)
I don't think that net.vms is really necessary, and would suggest that
netters vote no. The info-vax mailing list is almost completely about
VMS and is gatewayed into Usenet in the fa.info-vax group. Since I am
on the ARPA net I get the postings to info-vax directly, but I
subscribe to fa.info-vax as well. The longest delay between seeing
something in my mail and seeing it on info-vax was about three days.
--
----------------
Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp}
Havard University Science Center phone: 617-495-1270
One Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138mazur@inmet.UUCP (09/06/85)
I also vote no. Let's use net.decus instead.
Beth Mazur
{ihnp4,ima,harpo}!inmet!mazurdww@stl.UUCP (David Wright) (09/07/85)
In article <336@harvard.ARPA> sasaki@harvard.UUCP (Marty sasaki) writes: >I don't think that net.vms is really necessary, and would suggest that >netters vote no. The info-vax mailing list is almost completely about >VMS and is gatewayed into Usenet in the fa.info-vax group. Since I am >on the ARPA net I get the postings to info-vax directly, but I >subscribe to fa.info-vax as well. The longest delay between seeing >something in my mail and seeing it on info-vax was about three days. If someone as well known for useful contributions on VMS as Marty is suggesting that netters vote NO to net.vms, I'd better take the opportunity to put in a plea for "YES". So far the voting is pretty strongly on the "YES" side, and I hope it keeps that way!. Most replies come from UUCP sites rather than ARPANET ones; what I think many people with easy access to the ARPANET do not realise is that many netters cannot - or cannot easily - access the ARPANET gateways, so cannot post to fa.info-vax. I've been told where to mail my submissions, but according to netdir@mcvax (the main Eurpopean gateway to the US) mcvax does not know that site, so my mail gets 'bounced'. I'm no net expert, but probably know at least as much as the average net user about how it all works, so I'm sure there are many others who are sure they can't post to fa.info-vax. Also, because of the name many would not have realised that it was almost all about VMS. It has been suggested that net.vms and fa.info-vax (or info-vms if info-vax gets split into 2) should be 2-way gatewayed with net.vms, so people on both nets get the full benefit of the items posted. If this is possible it seems a good idea. So you USENET users (and any ARPANET users who wonder why they don't get much help on VMS from the USENET people) - keep those YES votes coming in!
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (09/07/85)
> I don't think that net.vms is really necessary, and would suggest that > netters vote no. The info-vax mailing list is almost completely about > VMS and is gatewayed into Usenet in the fa.info-vax group. Since I am > on the ARPA net I get the postings to info-vax directly, but I > subscribe to fa.info-vax as well. The longest delay between seeing > something in my mail and seeing it on info-vax was about three days. > -- > ---------------- > Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp} This is fine for those on Arpanet, but those of us on uucpnet can't post to fa.info-vax. I vote for the creation of net.vms. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (09/10/85)
In article <632@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >> I don't think that net.vms is really necessary, and would suggest that >> netters vote no. The info-vax mailing list is almost completely about >> VMS and is gatewayed into Usenet in the fa.info-vax group. Since I am >> on the ARPA net I get the postings to info-vax directly, but I >> subscribe to fa.info-vax as well. The longest delay between seeing >> something in my mail and seeing it on info-vax was about three days. >--- >This is fine for those on Arpanet, but those of us on uucpnet can't post >to fa.info-vax. I vote for the creation of net.vms. There is next to no demand on the Usenet for a net group devoted to VMS. At least, the once or twice before that this was discussed it was never possible to get more than about 5 people interested. That's all I've seen this time, too. The people that gateway most of the "fa" groups are about to convert them to two-way "mod" groups so that people on the Usenet can respond (something that is not easily done now with the "fa" groups). Thus, there is soon going to be no reason for a net.vms group. -- Gene "3 months and counting" Spafford The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf
rcb@rti-sel.UUCP (Random) (09/10/85)
net.vms???? yes Yes! YES!!!!!!! -- Random Research Triangle Institute ...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/16/85)
Why not just go on using net.decus? I mean, apart from micros we don't even have 1 vendor-specific group, let alone 2! The volume of VMS articles on net.decus is small, and it's amusing watching vms types try to do elementary unixoid things.
paul@greipa.UUCP (Paul A. Vixie) (09/18/85)
Paul Vixie
{decwrl dual pyramid}!greipa!paul
--
Paul Vixie
{decwrl dual pyramid}!greipa!paulcraigb@ipso.OZ (Craig Bevins) (09/20/85)
In article <632@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: > ... but those of us on uucpnet can't post to fa.info-vax. Oh really? What ever happened to mailing the moderator? I always understood that mail to "decvax!ucbvax!info-vax" would get your article to the right place. Craig Bevins. IPS Radio and Space Services. Sydney, Australia. ACSnet: craigb@ipso.ips.oz ARPA: craigb%ipso.oz@seismo.css.gov UUCP: ...!{seismo,mcvax,ukc,ubc-vision}!munnari!ipso.oz!craigb