kjones@talos.pm.com (Kyle Jones) (03/01/90)
In gnu.gcc Richard Stallman writes: > There seems to be some confusion still about what info-gcc should be > used for. So I will restate the purpose. > > The purpose of this mailing list (info-gcc, aka the newsgroup gnu.gcc) > is to post announcements from the Free Software Foundation to the > users of GCC. This includes both technical announcements such as new > versions, and political announcements, such as our support for the > League for Programming Freedom. > > By contrast, gnu.misc.discuss has been created for discussions. If this is the charter for gnu.gcc, then I don't see any point in the newsgroup being unmoderated. Are there any other GNU groups similar to gnu.gcc that we should know about?
jk0@image.soe.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin) (03/01/90)
From article <1990Feb28.174821.29332@talos.pm.com>, by kjones@talos.pm.com (Kyle Jones): > If this is the charter for gnu.gcc, then I don't see any point in > the newsgroup being unmoderated. > > Are there any other GNU groups similar to gnu.gcc that we should know about? For crying out loud, are we going to go thru this AGAIN? RMS: We need a monthly posting explaining that this "newsgroup" is a mailing list gatewayed into news, and that since FSF runs the mailing list they control the group. That's just the way it is period! And if too many people complain -- nuke the gateway. People who want info on gcc can subscribe to the mailing list. -- Jason Coughlin ( jk0@sun.soe.clarkson.edu , jk0@clutx ) "Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of." - They Might Be Giants
meulenbr@cstw68.prl.philips.nl (Frans Meulenbroeks) (03/01/90)
In article <1990Feb28.213850.21895@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> jk0@image.soe.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin) writes: > RMS: We need a monthly posting explaining that this "newsgroup" >is a mailing list gatewayed into news, and that since FSF runs the >mailing list they control the group. That's just the way it is period! Ummm. IMHO the mailing lists are gatewayed into the net and back. However, what's on the net is not controlled by FSF. Since usenet == anarchy, I might even create my own gnu.config. If FSF cannot take the critique they can decide - to pull the plug for the gateway (I would regret this) - gateway only to the net, but not back so the mailing list people won't see any usenet replies. (I don't have much problems with this one) - make it a moderated group I don't think a group can be owned by someone. If it can it may be time for FUF (Free Usenet Foundation) :-) Ban censorship Frans Meulenbroeks (meulenbr@cst.philips.nl) Centre for Software Technology ( or try: ...!mcsun!phigate!prle!cst!meulenbr)
jk0@image.soe.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin) (03/02/90)
From article <1169@prles2.prl.philips.nl>, by meulenbr@cstw68.prl.philips.nl (Frans Meulenbroeks): > However, what's on the net is not controlled by FSF. > Since usenet == anarchy, I might even create my own gnu.config. > I don't think a group can be owned by someone. > If it can it may be time for FUF (Free Usenet Foundation) :-) You're right. But it wasn't FSF that complained, it was me. It's exasperating seeing the monthly posting, "Gee, this newgroup isn't owned by FSF so I can post whatever I want. Don't tell me the purpose of it. Blah Blah Blah.." I was proposing to eliminate this... -- Jason Coughlin ( jk0@sun.soe.clarkson.edu , jk0@clutx ) "Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of." - They Might Be Giants
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (03/02/90)
In article <1169@prles2.prl.philips.nl> meulenbr@cstw68.prl.philips.nl (Frans Meulenbroeks) writes: In article <1990Feb28.213850.21895@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> jk0@image.soe.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin) writes: RMS: We need a monthly posting explaining that this "newsgroup" is a mailing list gatewayed into news, and that since FSF runs the mailing list they control the group. That's just the way it is period! RMS probably wouldn't bother (he probably doesn't read gnu.config). Len or Karl would be likely sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Hcandidates for the job. IMHO the mailing lists are gatewayed into the net and back. No HO required, that's an accurate description of the state of things (when they work :-), except for gnu.config and gnu.test, which exist only as newsgroups for administration of the gnu.* hierarchy itself. However, what's on the net is not controlled by FSF. The gnu.* newsgroups are an alternate distribution mechanism for the GNU mailing lists, and subject to the same management decisions. Since usenet == anarchy, I might even create my own gnu.config. First off, gnu.* isn't part of the Usenet, and isn't governed by the same conventions. You're welcome to create your own newsgroup named gnu.something, but it would be inconvenient to need to keep explaining to people that it's not part of the gnu.* hierarchy. I'd suggest you pick a different name, just for convenience. I don't think a group can be owned by someone. It can if it's part of their organization's private mailing list. If it can it may be time for FUF (Free Usenet Foundation) :-) Usenet may not be free enough for you, perhaps you'd prefer to start your group in alt.*.
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (03/02/90)
In article <BOB.90Mar1163341@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes:
RMS ... probably doesn't read gnu.config
Well, since he thinks that E-mail is a big time-sucker, you can imagine
his opinion of [gn]Usenet. :-)
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems