pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) (09/04/90)
Based upon the mishmash arriving at my site some peope are aliasing comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.internals. All well and good. My question: is anyone doing the opposite? Also, is anyone concerned that others will refuse to use c.u.i because they find it inappropriate (or believe that their unix source license prohibits them from posting to a group called c.u.i)? -- pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (09/04/90)
In article <34639@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes: >Based upon the mishmash arriving at my site some peope are aliasing >comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.internals. All well and good. My >question: is anyone doing the opposite? Also, is anyone concerned that >others will refuse to use c.u.i because they find it inappropriate (or >believe that their unix source license prohibits them from posting to a >group called c.u.i)? How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced the name change really was a bad idea? -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (09/05/90)
[ Followups to news.groups ] According to pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham): >Is anyone concerned that others will refuse to use c.u.i because >they find it inappropriate (or believe that their unix source >license prohibits them from posting to a group called c.u.i)? I don't think the newsgroup name will be a factor. After all, if people realize that comp.sources.unix isn't for proprietary UNIX[tm] source code, then they should also realize that c.u.internals will not be a vehicle for trade secret disclosure. According to jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II): >How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced >the name change really was a bad idea? As for people who think c.u.internals was a bad idea, well, the group passed its vote according to the guidelines. Anyone who thinks it should be renamed is free to run another vote. I should hope that administrators will carry c.u.internals in the meantime. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (09/06/90)
In article <26E4EC42.42AB@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II): >>How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced >>the name change really was a bad idea? > >As for people who think c.u.internals was a bad idea, well, the group >passed its vote according to the guidelines. Anyone who thinks it >should be renamed is free to run another vote. I should hope that >administrators will carry c.u.internals in the meantime. Well, I'm tending to agree with Doug Gwyn. Doug's statement was that he wouldn't be able to discuss UNIX internals because his license prohibited him from doing so. Since I don't have a copy of the non-disclosure agreements I signed with AT&T and IBM, I think I too will have to bow out. This voting business is really beginning to look pretty silly. What we really need is a good backbone cabal. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) (09/06/90)
In article <18533@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > Well, I'm tending to agree with Doug Gwyn. Doug's statement was > that he wouldn't be able to discuss UNIX internals because his > license prohibited him from doing so. What does the NAME of the newsgroup have to do with anything? As I understand it, John and Doug can post Unix(TM) articles in a newsgroup called comp.unix.spam, but can't legally post a SPAM recipe to comp.unix.internals? No-one said people are *required* to discuss proprietary info in c.u.i. If your license prevents you from doing so, then don't post anything proprietary. Hasn't this always been the case? Am I missing something here? -- Bruce G. Barnett barnett@crd.ge.com uunet!crdgw1!barnett
fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) (09/07/90)
In article <BARNETT.90Sep6125844@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) writes: In article <18533@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > Well, I'm tending to agree with Doug Gwyn. Doug's statement was > that he wouldn't be able to discuss UNIX internals because his > license prohibited him from doing so. What does the NAME of the newsgroup have to do with anything? As I understand it, John and Doug can post Unix(TM) articles in a newsgroup called comp.unix.spam, but can't legally post a SPAM recipe to comp.unix.internals? No-one said people are *required* to discuss proprietary info in c.u.i. If your license prevents you from doing so, then don't post anything proprietary. Hasn't this always been the case? Am I missing something here? One of the terms of a UNIX source license is that the licensee agrees not to discuss the internals of the UNIX operating system with unlicensed individuals. A posting to a group named comp.unix.internals could easily be viewed as prima facie evidence of a violation of that agreement. I can see Doug or John in court now: "Yes your honor I do participate regularly in a newsgroup named comp.unix.internals but I never discuss the internals of the UNIX operating system there! HONEST!" At least with comp.unix.wizards you'd have a reasable chance of defending your case. Regards, FWP -- -- Frank Peters Internet: fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu Bitnet: FWP1@MsState Phone: (601)325-2942 FAX: (601)325-8921
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (09/07/90)
From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) >Well, I'm tending to agree with Doug Gwyn. Doug's statement was >that he wouldn't be able to discuss UNIX internals because his >license prohibited him from doing so. Since I don't have a copy >of the non-disclosure agreements I signed with AT&T and IBM, I >think I too will have to bow out. > >This voting business is really beginning to look pretty silly. >What we really need is a good backbone cabal. I tend to agree also. What we need is something akin to a *constitution*, some set of basic rules/rights which no vote can violate (except a vote to change the constitution, which should be made difficult tho not impossible.) There also might be room for "special interest" votes, where the groups in question are recognized as being special interest enough that somehow the voting should be limited to interested parties (think of it like the difference between "state's rights" and "federal rights", the inherent problem of California being allowed to vote on how Wyoming spends their internal revenues, eg., I know, it happens, again, just an analogy.) One might, in this example, have compiled a list of contributors to c.u.w (perhaps some other groups, c.u.q) and restricted the vote to them. The fear being, members of another special interest "stuffing the ballot boxes" in a destructive way, perhaps not even totally maliciously, just misguided. Or even maliciously, or so self-interested as to make a mockery of the process (some large company voting against the creation of a group for a small competitor, e.g.) I think we are quite vulnerable to all these problems. I'd sum up at least some of these particular voting results to be: A group which was created to allow experts to chit-chat amongst themselves has now been re-structured with the hidden agenda to try to turn them into free consultants. One should be able to see the conflict of interest here, the vast majority would of course vote to "enslave" (again, I exaggerate) the relatively few experts. Why not? Why was it important at all to remove c.u.w? Why not just create some magnet groups so wizards can have some peace to speak about relatively wizardly matters? Was it to make sure that wizards had nowhere else to go??? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) (09/07/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: | |Well, I'm tending to agree with Doug Gwyn. Doug's statement was |that he wouldn't be able to discuss UNIX internals because his |license prohibited him from doing so. Since I don't have a copy |of the non-disclosure agreements I signed with AT&T and IBM, I |think I too will have to bow out. are you saying that although you know that the group is intended to replace unix.wizards you won't post because the name changed? even though you could post before. this stuff about licenses is bogus. |This voting business is really beginning to look pretty silly. |What we really need is a good backbone cabal. right. -- pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (09/07/90)
In article <BARNETT.90Sep6125844@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes: >No-one said people are *required* to discuss proprietary info in >c.u.i. If your license prevents you from doing so, then don't post >anything proprietary. Hasn't this always been the case? since the group name is "comp.unix.internals" some idiot might get the notion that what i am posting is "unix internals". i didn't say it was a correct notion, merely that some idiot might get that notion, and since i have signed non-disclosure agreements which would prevent me from otherwise posting "unix internals", i don't see i can post much of anything related to "unix internals" unless i say "gee, this isn't really unix internals" even though it smells just the same as it did before the group was "unix internals" and was just as "unproprietary" as before. this is the same reason i have abstained from posting to comp.sources.unix for the last 16 months. i don't want some idiot thinking that what i am posting is "unix sources" when it is really "john's sources". postings i make to alt.sources are always very explicit about the lineage of the code for exactly that reason. i'd rather not have to give complete bibliographical data for every thought that i post to this group. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
wnp@iiasa.AT (wolf paul) (09/07/90)
In article <1053@lot.ACA.MCC.COM> ables@lot.ACA.MCC.COM (King Ables) writes:
)I see the point that Doug and John have made concerning the name of
)the group. But I fail to see anything but a sematics problem here.
)
)Saying one "can't" take part in a group because of the name of the group
)is incorrect. Saying one CHOOSES NOT to participate for fear of being
)accused of doing something incorrect because the accuser make an assumption
)based only on the name of the group is another matter. This is sad for all
)concerned (the person who no longer participates as well as the rest of
)us for losing their insight), but at least it's a fair reason.
In a sense, your statement above is also based on semantics. But so be it.
If Doug and John were self-employed, with the UNIX source licence in their
own names, it would be their choice whether they take that risk. Since
both of them are employees, their respective employers presumably have
something to do with their inability to participate in a c.u.i
newsgroup, and they are justified in saying they "can't" participate.
In view of the recent S.S. investigation of "hackers", and the excesses
to which gov't investigators and prosecutors went in that context, the
name of the newsgroup is NOT a matter of mere semantics.
Unless one can clearly prove that the content of the newsgroup does
not bear out an unfavorable interpretation (i.e. in the case of
comp.sources.unix, all one need do is talk to the moderator), it seems
not too wise to name a newsgroup after something that is
specifically excluded from discussion by the UNIX license. If my
licence prohibits me from discussing UNIX internals, and I participate
in a newsgroup called comp.unix.internals, only the most well-meaning
investigator or prosecutor would believe that I am not violating
my licence.
--
Wolf N. Paul, IIASA, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe
PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp
INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET
* * * * Kurt Waldheim for President (of Mars, of course!) * * * *sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) (09/07/90)
In article <BZS.90Sep6153550@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > }Why was it important at all to remove c.u.w? Why not just create some }magnet groups so wizards can have some peace to speak about relatively }wizardly matters? Was it to make sure that wizards had nowhere else to Is it time for alt.unix.wizards? Personally I thought it was a shame to rename wizards. Sort or like renaming the main street in your town. You loose some of your heritage. Things don't always have to be perfect (in this case a perfectly concise and rational naming scheme for comp.unix). Sometimes its ok keep things around just so we know where we've been. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (09/07/90)
In article <35064@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes: >are you saying that although you know that the group is intended to replace >unix.wizards you won't post because the name changed? even though you >could post before. this stuff about licenses is bogus. that's correct. the name "comp.unix.internals" is too suggestive of "unix internals". >|This voting business is really beginning to look pretty silly. >|What we really need is a good backbone cabal. > >right. yes. i am beginning to think someone needs to reintroduce the "net" and "mod" groups and get back to the usenet some of us used to know and love. i think the first group to create is "net.wizards". -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (09/07/90)
(In this article, I suggest renaming c.u.internals to c.u.esoterica. Please read the entire article before commenting on it. Followups to news.groups.) During all the discussion of the comp.unix.* reorganization, people spoke up for and against renaming c.u.wizards. But no one ever suggested that the name "c.u.internals" could cause LEGAL difficulty. The idea seems ridiculous to me. But then, who ever said the law couldn't be ridiculous? From what I've read, the word "internals" is specifically mentioned in the AT&T source license. So people who have read the source code are hesitant to post anything to a newsgroup with the word "internals" in the name. Sigh. So I think it's time to rename the group again. As I recall, the best alternative name proposed during the discussion was "c.u.esoterica". At the time, I considered this name to be too vague; but it looks like the best choice right now. Someone (I) could run a vote on the renaming of c.u.internals to c.u.esoterica. But that would take a month for the discussion (again!) and three weeks for the vote (again!). However, since the discussion period has already run for the c.u.* reorganization, and c.u.esoterica resulted from that discussion, perhaps we could skip the discussion phase and go straight to a vote. Furthermore, due to the legal repercussions of the current name, we could just rename c.u.internals to c.u.esoterica immediately. If anyone objects strongly to a bending of the guidelines here, please let yourself be heard. I don't want this group's propagation to be fragmented because of administrator resentment. I'm listening. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
asherman@dino.ulowell.edu (Aaron Sherman) (09/08/90)
ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: In <BARNETT.90Sep6125844@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) writes: > >> Well, I'm tending to agree with Doug Gwyn. Doug's statement was >> that he wouldn't be able to discuss UNIX internals because his >> license prohibited him from doing so. > >What does the NAME of the newsgroup have to do with anything? > >As I understand it, John and Doug can post Unix(TM) articles in a >newsgroup called comp.unix.spam, but can't legally post a SPAM recipe >to comp.unix.internals? > >No-one said people are *required* to discuss proprietary info in >c.u.i. If your license prevents you from doing so, then don't post >anything proprietary. Hasn't this always been the case? > >Am I missing something here? No, Bruce, you aren't missing anything, except perhaps the view of the pouting faces of Doug Gwyn and John Haugh, III. They are (apparently) quite miffed that "their" newsgroup was renamed under their noses. [...] No, the only thing preventing them from continuing to discuss whatever they were discussing before the group was renamed is a lot of ego. Its too bad that some of the most erudite contributors to c.u.wizards are going to let their inflated sense of self-importance lead them to think that they can abridge the consensus to the net by picking up their ball and going home. It looks more like they are going out into the yard to eat "worms". Hmmm... I think that this is getting a little out of hand. I like the idea of a group as broad in scope as comp.unix.wizards being broken up into several groups. But the name "internals" does suggest discussion of that which some of us have signed agreements not to discuss. Thus I suggest that someone start a vote to change the name to something like "technical". It's too bad that "wizards" was too broad, as it tended to keep the l^Huser questions out (sometimes :), and managed not to sound like we were giving away internal secrets. No matter what we do, lets keep flames like the above out of it. -AJS -- asherman@dino.ulowell.edu or asherman%cpe@swan.ulowell.edu Note that as of 7/18/90 that's asherman@dino.cpe.ulowell.edu "That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is."
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
rob@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) (09/08/90)
In article <BARNETT.90Sep6125844@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes: ]What does the NAME of the newsgroup have to do with [posting to it]? ] ]As I understand it, John and Doug can post Unix(TM) articles in a ]newsgroup called comp.unix.spam, but can't legally post a SPAM recipe ]to comp.unix.internals? [...] ]Am I missing something here? Old Chinese saying say: `Do not bend to fasten shoelaces while walking in neighbor's melon field' SR ---
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 karl@MorningStar.Com (Karl Fox) (09/09/90)
In article <1747@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca> sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes: Is it time for alt.unix.wizards? Actually, it should probably be alt.unix.spam. :-) -- "I hear you guys deal with such dreck | Karl Fox, Morning Star Technologies as SNA and X.25." -Ed Vielmetti | karl@MorningStar.Com
asherman@dino.ulowell.edu (Aaron Sherman) (09/09/90)
rli@buster.irby.com (Buster Irby) writes: >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!! :-( Why not. If people want a newsgroup, and the net officially votes against it, then alt is a great place for it. I'm for the alt group (with hopes of both comp.unix.wizards AND comp.unix.internals existing one day). I think that people will find more intelligent conversation in wizards if there is a group with a slightly more descriptive name to draw the fire of those who are new to the net. Not that they should not be listened to, just that I like to listen to something ELSE every now and then :) -AJS -- asherman@dino.ulowell.edu or asherman%cpe@swan.ulowell.edu Note that as of 7/18/90 that's asherman@dino.cpe.ulowell.edu "That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is."
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (09/10/90)
In article <26E7C052.73E@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >If anyone objects strongly to a bending of the guidelines here, please >let yourself be heard. I don't want this group's propagation to be >fragmented because of administrator resentment. I'm listening. ... the name "comp.unix.wizards". it has such a nice ring to it. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
jackv@turnkey.tcc.com (Jack F. Vogel) (09/10/90)
In article <18539@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >In article <26E7C052.73E@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>If anyone objects strongly to a bending of the guidelines here, please >>let yourself be heard. I don't want this group's propagation to be >>fragmented because of administrator resentment. I'm listening. >... the name "comp.unix.wizards". it has such a nice >ring to it. I don't know, given that most of what I've seen in this group in the last couple of days have been 20 to 30 repetitive followups on how to recover the root password, not only is "wizards" not the word that comes to mind, but "internals" seems equally inappropriate. How about comp.unix.metoo :-}! Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine not my employer's. -- Jack F. Vogel jackv@locus.com AIX370 Technical Support - or - Locus Computing Corp. jackv@turnkey.TCC.COM
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (09/11/90)
In article <18530@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: #In article <34639@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes: #>Based upon the mishmash arriving at my site some peope are aliasing #>comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.internals ... is anyone doing the opposite? # #How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced #the name change really was a bad idea? Count me for one. I didn't bother with the original vote as I thought the real UNIX wizards on the net could quite well look after themselves, and when the result came out I followed it like a good news admin should (though I hadn't removed c.u.wizards). But it now seems clear we've made a collective mistake. Quite apart from the legal arguement (which I don't buy - but I'm not a lawyer), the sort of things discussed in c.u.wizards cover far more than just 'internals'. In fact on my recent reading of the group there's very little about the internals of UNIX, if that means kernal stuff, and still under half if you include the file system etc. The only solution, I think, is another vote. Who will do a formal CALL? Pending the result, lets leave both groups in place, with no aliasing. BTW, I've cross-posted this to c.u.wizards. If you see it in c.u.internals its been aliased. Regards, "None shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity" 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 <or> /g=David/s=Wright/org=STC Technology Ltd/prmd=STC plc/admd=Gold 400/co=GB
wsinpdb@svin02.info.win.tue.nl (Paul de Bra) (09/11/90)
In article <3370@stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: >... Quite apart from the legal arguement (which I don't >buy - but I'm not a lawyer), the sort of things discussed in c.u.wizards >cover far more than just 'internals'. In fact on my recent reading of the >group there's very little about the internals of UNIX, if that means kernal >stuff, and still under half if you include the file system etc. The whole issue went right by me as well, mostly because I was on vacation. But judging from the level of postings in c.u.wizards, the name 'wizards' didn't seem very appropriate to me anyway. I disagree that c.u.wizards was not discussing unix internals. Unix is more than a kernel and a file system. There are many questions about shell programming, awk, C, and other Unix goodies. Given a system not running a Unix kernel (Mach for instance) but with all Unix utilities, I would still perceive that as a Unix system. However, take the shell (or other major utilities) away from a real Unix system, and I would no longer perceive it as a Unix system. c.u.wizards was and c.u.internals is about the internals of the whole Unix system, which is not just the kernel, but also the standard utilities. Anyway, c.u.wizards or c.u.internals is not for discussions of c.u.wizards versus c.u.internals. Can we please go back to discussing Unix, PLEASE??? Paul. (debra@research.att.com)
sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) (09/12/90)
In article <3370@stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: }#How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced }#the name change really was a bad idea? }Count me for one. I didn't bother with the original vote as I thought the }The only solution, I think, is another vote. Who will do a formal CALL? }Pending the result, lets leave both groups in place, with no aliasing. Until another vote is called on this subject van-bc will carry comp.unix.internals without removing or aliasing comp.unix.wizards. -- Stuart Lynne Unifax Communications Inc. ...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) sl@wimsey.bc.ca
ray@ctbilbo.UUCP (Ray Ward) (09/12/90)
In article <887@iiasa.UUCP>, wnp@iiasa.AT (wolf paul) writes: > In article <1053@lot.ACA.MCC.COM> ables@lot.ACA.MCC.COM (King Ables) writes: > )I see the point that Doug and John have made concerning the name Like many working contributors to comp.unix.wizards, my time available for news of any kind varies inversely with my workload. However, comp.unix.wizards has always been one of the top two groups on my list. I was surprized to see that the name had been changed. I was disappointed with the replacement. There is a need for a two-level hierarchy of groups for UNIX questions/ problems/observations: one for novices and general population, and a higher-level group for those self-assured of their experience and competence. The former was supplied by c.u.questions and the latter, admirably, I thought, by c.u.wizards. The name "wizards" was sufficiently intimidating to keep novice posting to a minimum, while not limiting the discussions to "internals." ( How might one know when a problem is caused by "internals" or by something else? You may have only a problem unanswered in c.u.q, and no clue whatever. ) I have seen no discussion in this group about changing the name. I have not seen any notice in this group of a proposed name change. There may have been notice given in the frequently asked questions stuff; I almost never read that: I have no need to reread answers to questions I would not ask. At any rate, I highly resent having the name changed, and then finding out about it after the fact with no opportunity to contribute to the discussion. My resentment is heightened by the apparent stupidity of the change. I for one would support another round of discussion and another vote to change the name back; this time informing all those involved. If you want to add a group strictly for internals, do so. Don't destroy one of the most useful and informative groups on the net. PS. I noted in this thread some flames directed toward Doug Gwyn and others who do not feel they can continue to post to this new group. Yes, Doug -- as I, and some others who post to this group -- is occasionally gruff or short in his postings. Just the other day I read in c.u.q a posting by some tyro that should have been in lang.c, who did not even know the difference between a strcpy() to an uninitialized pointer as opposed to an array of char. I barely suppressed the urge to "RTFM" with a correct follow-up, and continued on. I came upon a very long, patient, and detailed answer to what I had regarded as an annoyingly ignorant posting: by Doug Gwyn. I was struck that someone prominent enough to receive a kudo from K&R in their 2d Edition would take that much effort to answer so elementary a question. I saved Doug's answer in a file named "humblepie," and adjusted my attitude (again). I would suggest that the flamers re-assess their own attitudes; changes to the newsgroup that drive away very valuable contributors and that offer nothing in compensation are very likely changes for the worse. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ray Ward Email: uunet!ctbilbo!ray Voice: (214) 991-8338x226, (800) 331-7032 Fax : (214) 991-8968 =-=-=-=- There _are_ simple answers, just no _easy_ ones. -- R.R. -=-=-=-=
willr@ntpdvp1.UUCP (Will Raymond) (09/12/90)
> > > >This voting business is really beginning to look pretty silly. > >What we really need is a good backbone cabal. > I tend to agree also. > > A group which was created to allow experts to chit-chat > amongst themselves has now been re-structured with the > hidden agenda to try to turn them into free consultants. After seeing that the vote was announced in CAPS I can't see where I can't complain that I didn't see it ( oh...BTW,I didn't see it ) but it really doesn't matter. As a consumer/producer of the Usenet, I'll follow general economic principles and put my money where my mouth is and, exclusively, continue to peruse and respond to questions posted in WIZARDS. But, not to miss out on anything, I'll probabally due a weekly batch scan of internals. ******* Will Raymond - Northern Telecom NTP in RTP | | ~ ~ | | . O o . Work: ...uucp!rti!ntpdvp1!willr | .V. | Fun: ...uucp!cs.unc.edu!raymond ._ _. | U | I speak for myself.
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (09/12/90)
[ Followups to news.groups. ] According to ray@ctbilbo.UUCP (Ray Ward): >The name "wizards" was sufficiently intimidating to keep novice >posting to a minimum ... I must have been reading a different group from Mr. Ward. I found the newbie-magnet effect in c.u.wizards irritatingly pronounced. >I highly resent having the name changed, and then finding out about >it after the fact with no opportunity to contribute to the discussion. I cross-posted the Call For Discussion and the Call For Votes to comp.unix.wizards and news.announce.newgroups. The very reason that that news.announce.newgroups exists is to warn users of proposed and ongoing newsgroup creation votes. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Anyone who doesn't read news.announce.newgroups had better enjoy surprises. It is apparent that Mr. Ward didn't take the time to read n.a.n, which is of course his privilege. But it's disingenuous for anyone who doesn't read n.a.n to complain about not having seen its contents. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) (09/13/90)
In message <1857@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca>, sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes: > > Until another vote is called on this subject van-bc will carry > comp.unix.internals without removing or aliasing comp.unix.wizards. That's just what I'm doing here. Maybe because of the harsh lessons from the climate up here, we Canadians have learned not to tear down bridges until the new ones are proven. I think the smart thing to do at this time is to undo the c.u.w rmgroup and let this thing ride for the rest of the year. It's just possible that the new c.u.* groups will soak up much of the stuff that was overloading c.u.w. Internals is a valid but separate topic from wizards anyway. Can't I be a unix wizard on an externals topic? On the other hand, we could try c.u.necromancer ;-). -- Yours etc., Tony Olekshy. Internet: tony%oha@CS.UAlberta.CA BITNET: tony%oha.uucp@UALTAMTS.BITNET uucp: alberta!oha!tony
frank@rsoft.bc.ca (Frank I. Reiter) (09/13/90)
In article <121@ctbilbo.UUCP> ray@ctbilbo.UUCP (Ray Ward) writes:
]
]There is a need for a two-level hierarchy of groups for UNIX questions/
]problems/observations: one for novices and general population, and a
]higher-level group for those self-assured of their experience and competence.
]The former was supplied by c.u.questions and the latter, admirably, I
]thought, by c.u.wizards. The name "wizards" was sufficiently intimidating
]to keep novice posting to a minimum, while not limiting the discussions
]to "internals."
On the other hand how many times haven't we had novices posting novice
questions to c.u.w because they figure the wizards ought to know how to
help them? I believe the intent of the renaming was to avoid just that
problem.
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Frank I. Reiter UUCP: {uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!rsoft!frank
Reiter Software Inc. frank@rsoft.bc.ca, a2@mindlink.UUCP
Surrey, British Columbia BBS: Mind Link @ (604)576-1214, login as Guestbdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (09/13/90)
In article <1857@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca> sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes: |In article <3370@stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: |}#How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced |}#the name change really was a bad idea? | |}Count me for one. I didn't bother with the original vote as I thought the | |}The only solution, I think, is another vote. Who will do a formal CALL? |}Pending the result, lets leave both groups in place, with no aliasing. | |Until another vote is called on this subject van-bc will carry |comp.unix.internals without removing or aliasing comp.unix.wizards. System becker, on the other hand, will alias comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.internals. Since this is a B news site, outgoing articles will all be sent as newsgroup comp.unix.internals. If another vote revises this requirement, then so be it... Cheers, -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "I still have my phil-os-o-phy" - Meredith Monk
del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) (09/14/90)
In article <450@oha.UUCP> tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) writes: >I think the smart thing to do at this time is to undo the c.u.w rmgroup and >let this thing ride for the rest of the year. It's just possible that the >new c.u.* groups will soak up much of the stuff that was overloading c.u.w. >Internals is a valid but separate topic from wizards anyway. Can't I be >a unix wizard on an externals topic? I've been thinking about unaliasing c.u.wizards here. It seems to me that c.u.wizards - (c.u.admin + c.u.internals + c.u.programmer) is probably just noise, so I could unsubscribe to c.u.wizards and increase the signal to noise ratio of what I read. -- Don "Truck" Lewis Harris Semiconductor Internet: del@mlb.semi.harris.com PO Box 883 MS 62A-028 Phone: (407) 729-5205 Melbourne, FL 32901
ted@stb.info.com (Theodore Thomas Garrett) (09/14/90)
In article <3370@stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: >In article <18530@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >#In article <34639@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes: >#>Based upon the mishmash arriving at my site some peope are aliasing >#>comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.internals ... is anyone doing the opposite? ># >#How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced >#the name change really was a bad idea? > >Count me for one. I didn't bother with the original vote as I thought the >real UNIX wizards on the net could quite well look after themselves, and >when the result came out I followed it like a good news admin should >(though I hadn't removed c.u.wizards). But it now seems clear we've made >a collective mistake. Quite apart from the legal arguement (which I don't >buy - but I'm not a lawyer), the sort of things discussed in c.u.wizards >cover far more than just 'internals'. In fact on my recent reading of the >group there's very little about the internals of UNIX, if that means kernal >stuff, and still under half if you include the file system etc. > >The only solution, I think, is another vote. Who will do a formal CALL? >Pending the result, lets leave both groups in place, with no aliasing. If there need be a formal call for votes, I so issue it. c.u.w. needs to co-exist with, if not predispose of c.u.i. I hereby call for votes on re-instating comp.unix.wizards.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (09/15/90)
In article <1990Sep14.010840.26683@mlb.semi.harris.com> del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) writes: | I've been thinking about unaliasing c.u.wizards here. It seems to me | that c.u.wizards - (c.u.admin + c.u.internals + c.u.programmer) is probably | just noise, so I could unsubscribe to c.u.wizards and increase the | signal to noise ratio of what I read. The question is, is the alias installed on major sites like uunet? If they are doing the alias very little will get through. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.
luke@modus.sublink.ORG (Luciano Mannucci) (09/15/90)
In article <3370@stl.stc.co.uk>, dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: %In article <18530@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: %#In article <34639@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes: %#}Based upon the mishmash arriving at my site some peope are aliasing %#}comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.internals ... is anyone doing the opposite? %# %#How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced %#the name change really was a bad idea? % % Count me for one. And Me too! Disclaimer: My humble opinions may not reflect my computer's ones. luke. - -- _ _ __ Via Aleardo Aleardi, 12 - 20154 Milano (Italy) | | | _ _| (__ PHONE : +39 2 3315328 FAX: +39 2 3315778 | | |(_)(_||_|___) Srl E-MAIL: luke@modus.sublink.ORG ______________________________ Software & Services for Advertising & Marketing
paul@unhtel.uucp (Paul S. Sawyer) (09/19/90)
In article <121@ctbilbo.UUCP> ray@ctbilbo.UUCP (Ray Ward) writes: > >Like many working contributors to comp.unix.wizards, my time available for >news of any kind varies inversely with my workload. However, comp.unix.wizards >has always been one of the top two groups on my list. I was surprized to >see that the name had been changed. I was disappointed with the replacement. > ... > >I for one would support another round of discussion and another vote >to change the name back; this time informing all those involved. If >you want to add a group strictly for internals, do so. Don't destroy >one of the most useful and informative groups on the net. I agree: let's keep wizards for wizards! And wizard watchers! (like me! B-) -- 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