gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (12/31/84)
Net.unix and net.unix-wizards are heavily used newsgroups covering
a large number of topics (despite the fact it is all about "unix").
Every once in a while, I propose spliting it into smaller, more
sensible pieces by creating new subgroups of net.unix. The
problem is that this idea has not received wide-ranging support
(perhaps due to apathy, or lack of audience) and nothing comes of it.
Well, I'm back again.
Also, the possibility of net.unix.politics has arrisen, something
I never though of before. Interesting, no?
But anyway, here's the general idea:
net.unix.shell shells (sh, csh, ksh, etc..)
net.unix.sys stuff in Section 2
net.unix.dev device drivers
net.unix.libc C library (section 3)
Maybe you have some ideas. In any case, this is something I think
needs to be done, and I like to get some concensus on how to go about
it.
READ THIS, TOO: I am posting this to the net.unix* groups because
some input from its readers is needed and they don't all read
net.news.group.
PLEASE DO NO POST FOLLOWUP ARTICLES TO THE NET.UNIX* GROUPS!
You can edit the "Newsgroups: " line in your follow up. The
discussion of this matter is intended to go in net.news.groups.
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
37 22'50" N / 121 59'12" W [ This is just me talking. ]carlton@masscomp.UUCP (Carlton Hommel) (01/02/85)
In article <823@amdahl.UUCP> (Gordon A. Moffett) proposes >spliting it into smaller, more >sensible pieces by creating new subgroups of net.unix. I like his idea, because it mirrors the natural backbone of Unix: The Manual! With minor changes, you can get a one-to-one mapping. > net.unix.shell (1) shells (sh, csh, ksh, etc..) > net.unix.sys (2) stuff in Section 2 > net.unix.libc (3) C library (section 3) > net.unix.dev (4) device drivers net.unix.misc (5) misc garbage net.games (6) gamey stuff net.unix.misc (5) alright, so the mapping breaks down There are already plethora of groups for administrators to blither in. I think the section 2 and 3 stuff should be merged; on some unix emulations there is no difference between the two - everything sys call is handled by a conversion library. And the difference is mostly historical, anyway. >Also, the possibility of net.unix.politics has arrisen, something >I never though of before. Interesting, no? No, it isn't. I view net.{wombat} as a place for flaming, and taking pontifical stands; where nothing is resolved. Net.unix* is for serious technical discussions between mature adults. :-) Carl Hommel Husband: Merry Christmas, dear! Its your own set of Unix Manuals! Wife: But all I wanted was a coffeepot!
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (01/04/85)
> = Carl Hommel > In article <823@amdahl.UUCP> (Gordon A. Moffett) proposes > > spliting it into smaller, more > > sensible pieces by creating new subgroups of net.unix. > I like his idea, because it mirrors the natural backbone of Unix: > > The Manual! > > ... I think the section 2 and 3 stuff should be merged; on some unix > emulations there is no difference between the two - everything sys call > is handled by a conversion library. And the difference is mostly > historical, anyway. I'd also think this division might not be terribly important from the programmer's point of view. Then how about Sections 2 and 3 being called: net.unix.clib (or ...libc?) The list then becomes: net.unix.dev device drivers net.unix.clib C library (sections 2 and 3) net.unix.shell shells (sh, csh, ksh, etc). > >Also, the possibility of net.unix.politics has arrisen, something > >I never though of before. Interesting, no? > No, it isn't. I view net.{wombat} as a place for flaming, and taking > pontifical stands; where nothing is resolved. Net.unix* is for serious > technical discussions between mature adults. :-) Even with :-) I think you are right. Net.unix was getting deluged with personal opinions of AT&T business morality, which is a real waste (what does he mean by that?). Now if you have a "vote" for this idea, write me a letter. If you have other points or changes you would like to make to this proposal, post them here. Thank you. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam "Everything you know is wrong"
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuqui Q. Koala) (01/04/85)
>In article <823@amdahl.UUCP> (Gordon A. Moffett) proposes >>spliting it into smaller, more >>sensible pieces by creating new subgroups of net.unix. sigh. There is a BIG problem with splitting net.unix*, something people seem to be forgetting. It is called the ARPAnet. A good percentage of the volume of net.unix-wizards and net.unix comes off of the arpanet, and the arpanet gets everything funneled back up to it. Unless you can talk the arpanet people into splitting their end as well, you are creating a BIG logistical problem. If you post something to net.unix.wizards.games.zork.hints, it is easy to simply ship that to INFO-UNIX-WIZARDS on the net, but how does something come back? and where? Unless you can get someone like Mark Shaney to read each message and move it into the appropriate group, about half of the messages will still show up in unix-wizards when they come off of ARPA, and a lot of responses will get lost because of the group shift. Besides, it is simply silly. net.unix is underutilized because people insist on posting everything to unix-wizards. net.unix-wizards is mis-utilized because people start nitpicking and get off the subject too easily. Perhaps what we ought to do is say that technical discussions belong in net.unix-wizards and when they digress into political, personal, or religious (like VMS) discussions they move to net.unix. chuq -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Deadbone erotica is the prickly panic of forgotten milleniums, it is the moldy billion year madness that creeps deep along the spinal behind of my mind.
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (01/05/85)
> There is a BIG problem with splitting net.unix*, something people seem to > be forgetting. > > It is called the ARPAnet. A good percentage of the volume of > net.unix-wizards and net.unix comes off of the arpanet, and the arpanet > gets everything funneled back up to it. > ...If you post something to net.unix.wizards.games.zork.hints, it is > easy to simply ship that to INFO-UNIX-WIZARDS on the net, but how does > something come back? and where? Unless you can get someone like Mark Shaney > to read each message and move it into the appropriate group, about half of > the messages will still show up in unix-wizards when they come off of ARPA, > and a lot of responses will get lost because of the group shift. So its function would apparrently evolve into 'fa.unix-wizards'. I doubt people would stop using net.unix-wizards. People can post to net.unix-wizards and net.unix.{dev,shell,clib} simulaneously, if they like. Perhaps some software solution could deal with the ARPAnet problem. If there is some what ARPA users could specify for our benefit which subgroup to post the article to, that would be sufficient. Does the ARPAnet produce that much traffic to net.unix-wizards? Is a software solution not possible? -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam "Will Mr. 'Uh, Clem' please come to the hospitality shelter in this area immediately? Thank you."
ken@turtlevax.UUCP (Ken Turkowski) (01/05/85)
In article <2151@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuqui Q. Koala) writes: >There is a BIG problem with splitting net.unix*, something people seem to >be forgetting. > >It is called the ARPAnet. A good percentage of the volume of >net.unix-wizards and net.unix comes off of the arpanet, and the arpanet >gets everything funneled back up to it. Unless you can talk the arpanet >people into splitting their end as well, you are creating a BIG logistical >problem. If you post something to net.unix.wizards.games.zork.hints, it is >easy to simply ship that to INFO-UNIX-WIZARDS on the net, but how does >something come back? and where? This is irrelevant. We are engineering only one net: that of the USENET. Whatever conventions the ARPANET or any other network needn't concern us. -- Ken Turkowski @ CADLINC, Menlo Park, CA UUCP: {amd,decwrl,nsc,spar}!turtlevax!ken ARPA: turtlevax!ken@DECWRL.ARPA
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuqui Q. Koala) (01/05/85)
>So its function would apparrently evolve into 'fa.unix-wizards'. fa.unix-wizards? right. Make it read-only, we don't really need that information at all, why not just stop it completely? Who needs arpanet? Who needs 30-50% of the information in unix-wizards anyway? Fa groups don't work terribly well, Gordon, mainly because it is almost impossible to get information back to it. Look at fa.info-mac and net.micro.mac and the duplication we have there (perhaps we ought to consider moving the fa material into net.micro.mac, but that is beside the point). Moving ARPA unix-wizards to an FA group would be a BIG mistake for both sides-- the ARPA people would lose feedback from Usenet, and the usenet people would have YA group to duplicate postings around. ugh. >I doubt people would stop using net.unix-wizards. People can post to >net.unix-wizards and net.unix.{dev,shell,clib} simulaneously, if they >like. If they aren't going to stop using net.unix-wizards, why should be bother? Your statement basically says 'it isn't broken, but let's fix it anyway'. >Perhaps some software solution could deal with the ARPAnet problem. Software? Oh, PLEASE don't get me going on the reality of making software solutions in an environment where there are sites still running A news (not to mention notes, which I won't mention) and the realities of trying to get the damn stuff written, tested, installed, working, and then used. If we can't do it with what we have, now, in existence, installed, working (kindof) and accepted by the user community, you are SOL (shoot out of luck). Period. Exclamation point. >If there is some what ARPA users could specify for our benefit >which subgroup to post the article to, that would be sufficient. I have a question for you, Gordon. If I asked you to suggest subgroups for your postings, even though you don't see the subgroups, would you really appreciate it? You are asking the ARPA people to change their software and how they deal with it so that it can benefit people on another network completely. The ones that will simply ignore you will bitch mightily about that, and I don't blame them. >Does the ARPAnet produce that much traffic to net.unix-wizards? >Is a software solution not possible? My random survey shows something like 30% of the traffic is ARPA based. It varies, of course-- sometimes I see almost 50% of the traffic from arpa. Of course, those figures aren't significant-- we are always looking for ways to cut net volume.... chuq -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Deadbone erotica is the prickly panic of forgotten milleniums, it is the moldy billion year madness that creeps deep along the spinal behind of my mind.
dae@psuvax1.UUCP (Daemon) (01/05/85)
> Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam > > The list then becomes: > > net.unix.dev device drivers Perhaps net.unix.kern for device drivers *and* other kernel beasts? > net.unix.clib C library (sections 2 and 3) net.unix.libc, surely. -- \ / \/ \ / From the furnace of Daemon ( ...{psuvax1,gondor,shire}!dae ) \/ (814) 237-1901 "I will have no covenants but proximities" [Emerson] When the going gets tough, the weird turn pro.
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (01/06/85)
Well, here are a few problems that I'd like to see solved:
[1] Stuff in net.unix and net.unix-wizards that don't
belong there; like what should be going to net.lang.c,
or net.text ("how come nroff does thus and such ...?"),
or to net.flame or net.politics.
[2] Stuff in net.unix-wizards that should be in net.unix
("I've noticed this peculiar behavior of the C-shell....")
[3] And finally (here's the important part) stuff in
net.unix-wizards that isn't so much about Unix as it is
about hardware: stuff about DEVICE DRIVERS for VAXES and
PDP-11s Presumably this is boring to each group oppositely,
but it is particularly boring to those of us who don't use
Vaxes and PDP-11's. (This number is expected to rise...).
Now, this does boarder on flame (hey, but why break tradition?), and
device drivers do have a place in Unix discussions, but considering
the volume in net.unix and net.unix-wizards, a lot of the machine-
specific stuff could be hearded off to one side and readers can
unsubscribe to newsgroups refering to hardware that they never
use.
So, that's the problem. Now can I get a little cooperation here
about solving the problem? Thank you.
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
"Her name was McGill, and she called herself Lil, but everyone knew
her as Nancy...."chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuqui Q. Koala) (01/06/85)
>Well, here are a few problems that I'd like to see solved: > > [1] Stuff in net.unix and net.unix-wizards that don't > belong there; like what should be going to net.lang.c, > or net.text ("how come nroff does thus and such ...?"), > or to net.flame or net.politics. Hey! I agree with Gordon (put away those silly trumpets!) In fact, I'll generalize his comment-- "I want to see stuff anywhere that it doesn't belong (net.general, net.singles. net.religion, net.foo, net.wobegon) moved to where it DOES belong or taken out of distribution. > [2] Stuff in net.unix-wizards that should be in net.unix > ("I've noticed this peculiar behavior of the C-shell....") See above. Another agreement (get away from me with that marching band!) > [3] And finally (here's the important part) stuff in > net.unix-wizards that isn't so much about Unix as it is > about hardware: stuff about DEVICE DRIVERS for VAXES and > PDP-11s Presumably this is boring to each group oppositely, > but it is particularly boring to those of us who don't use > Vaxes and PDP-11's. (This number is expected to rise...). I don't really agree with this-- most of the hardware oriented can be relevant to other implementations in theory, at least. I think if we take care of the duplications and garbage this area is a small enough percentage to not really matter... >Now, this does boarder on flame (hey, but why break tradition?), and >device drivers do have a place in Unix discussions, but considering >the volume in net.unix and net.unix-wizards, a lot of the machine- >specific stuff could be hearded off to one side and readers can >unsubscribe to newsgroups refering to hardware that they never >use. I think if we heard off the chaff, the few kernels of wheat that aren't appropriate to your own specific implementation shouldn't really bother you. I'm not really interested in Pyramids, UTS, SYSVR99, PDP11's, UTS, or anything basically non-berkeley, but I'd scream loudly at a suggestion of net.unix-wizards.usg, net.unix-wizards.bsd, etc. because there IS USG stuff that is interesting to keep an eye on. I don't want to see us split it up, I do want to see us clean it up. >So, that's the problem. Now can I get a little cooperation here >about solving the problem? Thank you. The basic problem is one of knowledge. The net has finally grown to the point where not everyone on the net really understands the uses of the groups. Part of it is because there isn't a commitment on the part of many admins to make sure that new readers get a little tutoring, part of it is because the large number of newsgroups out there have the net at a level of complexity that cause new users confusion about what is really going on, part of it is because the names of the topics aren't always clear (i.e. net.general), and part of it is because we've never figured out how to reach these new users and get them the information they need to use the net intelligently. I can only think of two ways to fix the problem: 1) figure out how to get all users to understand how to properly post to the net, educating them as to appropriate topics and appropriate ethics. 2) Put someone between the posters and the readers that can help the posters when neccessary and protect the readers if required. This is called (*gasp*) a moderator. We've tried education in a number of ways, including my rewrite of the Emily-Post document, net.announce.newusers, screaming, yelling, writing notes, frothing at the mouth, and generally trying to help people every way we can think of. As far as I can tell, every time we help one new users become a better poster on the net, three new naive people show up to mispost in their place. That is not the kind of learning curve I like. Moderators STILL have a lot of potential, but in many ways they haven't proven themselves. I STILL want to see them work, and I'm still working on getting them to work better, but I don't think we can rely on them yet. Unfortunately, they are the only way I see to reliably remove the garbage from an overused topic. chuq -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Now look here Mister "I'm not just a word processor"...
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (01/06/85)
Why not make .wizards a subgroup of unix, if it really needs to exist at all? (What rules govern which group you post to, anyway?). As for stuff that belongs in other groups, there is nothing that can be done about it. Unix isn't the only group with these problems. Remember the recent series of articles posted to abortion, religion, philosophy, and (I think) politics that probably belonged only in politics? Remember how long it went on? -Dragon -- UUCP: ...seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
furuta@uw-june (Richard Furuta) (01/08/85)
Comparing fa.info-mac and net.micro.mac in this case isn't really relevant. fa.info-mac is deliberately moderated to keep the traffic down to mainly things of interest to people who want to develop programs on their Macs. In particular, many of the recent net.micro.mac messages about "please post binhex" would have been suppressed on fa.info-mac. net.micro.mac's charter is much wider. In many cases, particularly with technical groups, the Arpanet people prefer to have a list gatewayed to a fa. group rather than to a net. group because the people posting from Usenet are usually a little more knowledgable and hence a little more restrained in what they post. Before anyone hollers "elitism", note that this is a good part of the argument for having mod. groups too. --Rick
fair@dual.UUCP (Erik E. Fair) (01/09/85)
One thing I'd like to point out as a USENET person who also maintains
one of the gateways to the ARPA INTERNET is that if the traffic in
UNIX-WIZARDS gets too crufty, the people on the internet will volunteer a
moderator, and be done with it. One reason they have not done so to
date is that moderation, for them, is a BIG slowdown; response time to
a direct distribution mailing list (which UNIX-WIZARDS is now) is often
on the order of hours, as opposed to days, and a moderated digest would
put a 24 to 48 hour delay in things. Other than that, the internet
community has no qualms about moderated digests, because it has a long
and distinguished history on their side of the gateway. fa.unix-wizards
may yet live again...
Mr. USENET for ucbvax & dual,
Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucb-arpa.ARPA
dual!fair@BERKELEY.ARPA
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,hplabs,decwrl,unisoft,fortune,sun,nsc}!dual!fair
Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, Californiatower@inmet.UUCP (01/14/85)
Re net.unix* and the ARPA lists.
It would be cutting our own throats on USENET to make changes in
the net.unix and net.unix-wizard structure that hurt the folks on
the ARPAnet side of the gateway.
Though the ARPA folks have less then half the traffic, they have
better than half the quality!
I'm sure the ARPA gating site wouldn't mind funneling alot of net.unix.*
sub-groups into INFO-UNIX, and likewize for net.unix-wizards ->
INFO-UNIX-WIZARDS, leaving the ARPA -> USENET traffic alone. This is
much like what is happening presently with net.micro.* and the
INFO-MICRO list.
Of course, this wouldn't solve the perceived problem of needing
to sub-divide the present traffic. The ARPA traffic would remain
un-divided. The overly zealous USENETers could, of course, then
"n" key any news with an ARPAnet address [ ;-} ].
BTW, I do NOT find the present situation annoying or difficult,
and see no need to sub-divide the two groups in question!
This may be attributed to the ecellant notesfile interface inmet
uses for the NEWS, though I understand the rn gives a lot of power
as well to ignore groups of news items easily.
Yours,
-len tower UUCP: {ihnp4,harpo}!inmet!tower
Intermetrics, Inc. INTERNET: ima!inmet!tower@CCA-UNIX.ARPA
733 Concord Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 661-1840
U.S.A.rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (01/17/85)
> Every once in a while, I propose spliting it into smaller, more > sensible pieces by creating new subgroups of net.unix. The > problem is that this idea has not received wide-ranging support > (perhaps due to apathy, or lack of audience) and nothing comes of it. > > Well, I'm back again. OK, let me voice some negative support, lest a lack of response be interpreted again as apathy...I haven't seen so much appearing in net.unix* that one couldn't wade through it pretty quickly. It's easy enough to recognize the articles you want to see and dodge the n-th order followups to topics which are no longer of interest or weren't to start with. It helps if the Subject lines make sense, of course. There are some minor costs to splitting newsgroups, such as folks who don't know how to do a multiple-group posting when that's appropriate. But the major issue is really whether the split will do any good. If most of us who read and submit to net.unix and net.unix-wizards end up reading and following all of the proposed net.unix.* groups, we haven't gained anything by the split. There are some exceptional topics, like material suited for a net.unix.politics, but chances are that people would neither post to that nor read it. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (01/17/85)
> >There is a BIG problem with splitting net.unix*, something people seem to > >be forgetting. > > > >It is called the ARPAnet. A good percentage of the volume of > >net.unix-wizards and net.unix comes off of the arpanet,... > > This is irrelevant. We are engineering only one net: that of the USENET. > Whatever conventions the ARPANET or any other network needn't concern us. Cute. Let's make an overt effort to be insular--that seems like a clever idea for a mechanism designed to disseminate information! -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.