tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (11/01/89)
It's been roughly a week since I called for the poll and the results
are in. I'm quite happy with the turn-out -- it even went into double
digits, which is something I was not expecting. Here are the votes
and how they voted.
alt.source-code:
Rich Salz <rsalz@bbn.com>
William Lewis <wiml@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Brandon Allbery <allbery@NCoast.ORG>
Kyle Jones <kjones%talos.UUCP@uunet.uu.net>
Dave Lawrence <tale@rpi.edu>
alt.source.code:
Raymond Chen <raymond@math.berkeley.edu>
Dave Tutelman <dmt%pegasus.UUCP@att.att.com>
Paul Meyer <pem@cadnetix.com>
alt.source-code.only:
Roy Silvernail <roy%comcon.UUCP@uunet.uu.net>
Tim Bell <bellt@boulder.colorado.edu>
alt.sources.only:
Tom Neff <tneff@bfmny0.uu.net>
alt.source.programs:
Jay Maynard <jay@splut.conmicro.com>
alt.source-code.damnit:
Paul Sutcliffe <paul@devon.lns.pa.us>
alt.sources: (aka alt.leave.it.the.hell.alone)
Wayne Mesard <mesard@wilma.bbn.com>
Karl F Fox <karl@morningstar.com>
Nick Holloway <alfie@cs.warwick.ac.uk>
William Barr <barr@caen.engin.umich.edu>
Two people handed two names, which I filed under the one that appeared
first in their messages because eveything else seemed equal. One other
also commented that he was strongly opposed to anything.only. My
personal favourite for clarity is alt.source-code.only, but it's long
and I understand why people would be more opposed to that then some
other name.
The poll seems to indicate that people are willing to try the name
change; it leans toward alt.source[-.]code. Unless someone has major
problems with this, I think an rmgroup for alt.sources and a newgroup
for alt.source-code should appear in about a week.
Thanks to all who took the time to reply.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))kim@uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) (11/01/89)
In article <1989Nov1.044114.1532@rpi.edu>, tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: > It's been roughly a week since I called for the poll and the results > are in. > > [ ... ] > > The poll seems to indicate that people are willing to try the name > change; it leans toward alt.source[-.]code. Unless someone has major > problems with this, I think an rmgroup for alt.sources and a newgroup > for alt.source-code should appear in about a week. Please bear in mind that there also exist *this* group (alt.sources.d), and alt.sources.amiga. If you want to create a new group that doesn't live under alt.sources, well and good. Or if you want a new sub.group under alt.sources, that's fine too. But please DON'T rmgroup alt.sources itself, as there are already sub.groups living under that umbrella ...! If by chance rmgroup'ing alt.sources would leave the subgroups intact, then I apologize for this small waste of net.bandwidth. Thanks! /kim P.S. Crossposted to comp.sys.amiga, so folks there will know of this potential change. -- UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,uunet,oliveb,ames}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 BIX: kdevaughn GEnie: K.DEVAUGHN CIS: 76535,25
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (11/01/89)
In <fbs.02so64kf01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> kim@uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn):
Kim> Please bear in mind that there also exist *this* group (alt.sources.d),
Kim> and alt.sources.amiga.
AcK! A rub I'd not considered at this point. The intent through all
of this was to leave everything else alone, just rename alt.sources.
Kim> If you want to create a new group that doesn't live under alt.sources,
Kim> well and good. Or if you want a new sub.group under alt.sources, that's
Kim> fine too.
It really isn't a matter of _where_, subgroup or not, but a matter of
getting a clearer name. I'm beginning to wonder about any of the
names anyway because I can envision the same number of non-source
postings but all saying, "Where I can get the source code for ...?"
The only thing that still has me leaning toward the renaming is
personal testimony from Brandon, as a moderator, and from three other
people, as users, stating that a different name would certainly cut
down on some of them.
Kim> If by chance rmgroup'ing alt.sources would leave the subgroups
Kim> intact, then I apologize for this small waste of net.bandwidth.
That is a bit of a problem. A careful admin could pull it off without
any problem as long as he knew what was going on. C News as shipped
will not remove the directory. I don't know about B News as shipped,
but it was configured here to take out the directory while performing
an rmgroup. With either, though, the directory would go away with rm
-rf, which means directories for d/ and amiga/ would go too. The most
major problem in all of this is many sites either don't have a news
admin or have one that doesn't know/doesn't care.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))ray@dirac.physics.purdue.edu (Ray Moody) (11/02/89)
In article <fbs.02so64kf01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, kim@uts (Kim DeVaughn) writes: >But please DON'T rmgroup alt.sources itself, as there are already sub.groups >living under that umbrella ...! > >If by chance rmgroup'ing alt.sources would leave the subgroups intact, then >I apologize for this small waste of net.bandwidth. Renaming alt.sources to alt.source-code will leave the subgroups intact, but it would also leave the groups "disorganized". If alt.sources is to be renamed, then the subgroups should be renamed too. Ray
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (11/02/89)
In article <1989Nov1.155911.21118@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes:
That is a bit of a problem. A careful admin could pull it off without
any problem as long as he knew what was going on. C News as shipped
will not remove the directory. I don't know about B News as shipped,
but it was configured here to take out the directory while performing
an rmgroup. With either, though, the directory would go away with rm
-rf, which means directories for d/ and amiga/ would go too. The most
major problem in all of this is many sites either don't have a news
admin or have one that doesn't know/doesn't care.
I think you want to modify C News's shell script so that it does:
rm /usr/spool/news/newsgroup/*
rmdir /usr/spool/news/newsgroup
which will preserve any subgroups below it, for example alt.sources.amiga.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
Live up to the light thou hast, and more will be granted thee.
A recession now appears more than 2 years away -- John D. Mathon, 4 Oct 1989.jgreely@oz.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) (11/02/89)
Why not just create alt.sources.wanted? It would seem a bit simpler than some of the others (although alt.source-code.damnit does have a primitive appeal). -=- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
jeffm@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jeff Medcalf) (11/02/89)
While we're at it, what about comp.source.code.misc comp.source.code.sun comp.source.code.unix comp.source.code.x comp.source.code.smiley -- Jeff Medcalf jeffm@uokmax.uucp jeffm@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu !chinet!uokmax!jeffm jeffm@invent_an_address (as reliable as the preceeding) In 1869, the waffle iron was invented, thus solving the annoying tendency of waffles to wrinkle in the dryer.
perry@ccssrv.UUCP (Perry Hutchison) (11/03/89)
In article <1989Nov1.044114.1532@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: > I think an rmgroup for alt.sources and a newgroup > for alt.source-code should appear in about a week. My suggestion would be to newgroup alt.source-code and change alt.sources to moderated (after posting an announcement there), and then wait another week or two before rmgrouping alt.sources. The reason is that execution of an rmgroup deletes any articles in the removed group, so anyone who hasn't read them loses. Changing the old group to moderated should prevent any further postings while allowing its existing articles to remain until they expire normally.
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (11/05/89)
Look, folks, someone already issued a newgroup for alt.sources.wanted, which seems like a great idea (if some people like aliasing it to comp.sources.wanted, no harm done -- people in a position to provide the goods probably read both). We don't NEED every single change that's been discussed. There has been almost zero noise on alt.sources itself since this argument started. Doesn't this suggest something? KEEPING CONSCIOUSNESS AROUSED is the best medicine. Why don't we have a monthly WELCOME TO ALT.SOURCES posting with a 30-day expire, which tells new users what's what? I bet fewer people would post inappropriately if this existed. -- "A man came into the the office one day and said he \|/ Tom Neff was a sailor. We cured him of that." - Mark Twain, -O- tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET on his days as a doctor's apprentice in California. /|\ uunet!bfmny0!tneff