peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (09/08/90)
In article <1747@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca> sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes: > Is it time for alt.unix.wizards? I'll create an alt.unix.wizards in a couple of days unless I get lots of nasty email. There are clearly a lot of people who want something like it. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
rli@buster.irby.com (Buster Irby) (09/08/90)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1747@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca> sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes: >> Is it time for alt.unix.wizards? >I'll create an alt.unix.wizards in a couple of days unless I get lots of >nasty email. There are clearly a lot of people who want something like it. Sounds like sour grapes to me Peter! While you are at it, why don't you create alt.unix.sco also? I hear there are a lot of people who would like it also!! :-( For those unable to detect it, this was a sarcastic posting! I am definitely against taking an end run position here. -- Buster Irby buster!rli
pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) (09/09/90)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: |I'll create an alt.unix.wizards in a couple of days unless I get lots of |nasty email. There are clearly a lot of people who want something like it. it doesn't seem wise. someone might get in trouble for posting to an alternate reality/pseudo-underground/anarchistic network and wind up getting sued and losing their source license. i know i'd worry about it. -- pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (09/09/90)
In article <4YQ5MLG@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >> Is it time for alt.unix.wizards? > >I'll create an alt.unix.wizards in a couple of days unless I get lots of >nasty email. There are clearly a lot of people who want something like it. Huh? I know that some people morn the loss of the old name, but the group still exists under its new name of comp.unix.internals. Why on earth should we need a new alt group to 'shadow' an existing comp group? It makes sense to introduce an Altnet group for a new subject that may later migrate to the Usenet, or for a subject that the main Usenet will not carry, but not for a subject that is already as well supported as comp.unix. Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW Usenet works on the principle that 10,000 people know more about the answer to any question than one does. Unfortunately they know 10,000 different answers.
wayne@teemc.UUCP (Michael R. Wayne) (09/09/90)
Er, I don't suppose anyone thought of asking AT&T legal department
if they have any problem with the name of the group? As I understand it,
there is an 800 number for source licensees to contact if they have any
questions regarding their agreement. Not having a source license, I don't
have the number handy. Rather than relying on net.hysteria, how about a
slightly more logical approach to the problem?
/\/\ \/\/
--
Michael R. Wayne --- TMC & Associates --- wayne@teemc.tmc.mi.org
Operator of the only 240 Horsepower UNIX machine in Michigan