paul@unhtel.uucp (Paul S. Sawyer) (10/05/90)
In article <21619:Oct321:09:0990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > >You're absolutely right. There should never be a general group (except >perhaps .misc to handle spillover) when more specific groups are >available. The current comp.unix hierarchy disobeys this rule. That's >why it's so confusing. Agreed. >I kept that other proposal to noncontroversial groups. Now here's what >I'd really like to see happen: > > newgroup comp.unix.futures > newgroup comp.unix.kernel > rmgroup comp.unix > > forget comp.unix.questions, more specific groups are now available > alias comp.unix.questions to comp.unix.misc > gateway info-unix to comp.unix.misc OK. > forget comp.unix.wizards, more specific groups are now available NO!!! This is just why .wizards should come back. > ... > rmgroup comp.unix.internals, the name sucks AGREED!!! > eventually rmgroup comp.unix.questions Maybe. > eventually rmgroup comp.unix.wizards NEVER! (when you pry my cold dead hands from the terminal B-) >But inertia prevents such drastic changes from happening overnight. So >I'll wait, let the confusion settle a bit, and see what can be done step >by step. > >Anyone who wants to bring back ``the old unix-wizards'' should realize >that the old unix-wizards has been dead for a few years. The group has >been a mishmash of discussions, mostly like comp.unix.programmer, some >like comp.unix.kernel/shell/futures. To revive the past you must start >from a clean slate. So let's make it "alive" with the discussions on traditions, foods, and all the other arcana (NO, not comp.unix.arcana! B-) that make UNIX more than just "A Registered Trade Mark of [current AT&T mutation]", now that there ARE newsgroups for the more "serious" stuff! Why not? -- Paul S. Sawyer uunet!unh!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.UUCP UNH Telecommunications attmail!psawyer p_sawyer@UNHH.BITNET Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: +1 603 862 3262 FAX: +1 603 862 2030