griffith@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Michael Griffith) (10/13/90)
Perhaps I'm wrong, but doesn't internals imply a discussion on the internals of Unix? (Which I take to mean things pretty close to a kernel level...) This is what I subscribed to this group for, but I see little difference between this group and comp.unix.*. I think the catagories need to be subdivided into a sense making order. comp.unix.programming for programming, internals for internals, etc. I don't see any need to choose wizards over internals because both seem more like programming to me. I think that posts on low level things, such as device drivers are appropriate. I think that the trojan horse stuff should go into comp.unix.security or comp.unix.hackers or something. I'm more interested in hearing people discuss really low level concepts. But hey, just my $0.02. Granted, the trojan horse stuff almost makes my definition of internals, but I'm getting tired of 18 billion "Trojan Horse" subjects every time I try to read the group. | Michael Griffith | If I had an opinion it certainly | | griffith@eecs.ee.pdx.edu | wouldn't be the same one as | | ...!tektronix!psueea!eecs!griffith | Portland State University anyways. |
ronnie@mindcraft.com (Ronnie Kon) (10/17/90)
In article <325@pdxgate.UUCP> griffith@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Michael Griffith) writes: >Perhaps I'm wrong, but doesn't internals imply a discussion on the internals >of Unix? (Which I take to mean things pretty close to a kernel level...) Hah! Just goes to show that **YOU** are not a wizard. Any wizard knows that comp.unix.internals is for discussion of renaming the comp.unix.* heirarchy. The word "internal" is short for "intermidable." :-) Ronnie -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ronnie B. Kon | "I don't know about your brain, but kon@groundfog.stanford.edu | mine is really bossy." ...!{decwrl,ames}!mindcrf!ronnie | -- Laurie Anderson