From: wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) Subject: Re: Splitting comp.os.linux, again Date: 21 Oct 1992 14:50:07 GMT
(Crossposted to news.groups.)
mdw@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh) writes:
>comp.os.linux.development -- for the hard-core types, any kind of development
> for/under Linux.
I don't feel that this is necessary. There are not that many
developers, and most of those are probably on the mailing lists.
>comp.os.linux.announce -- (moderated) announcements. Important stuff
This I think is a good idea (even though it might kill Linux News).
>comp.os.linux.networking -- for discussions about networking, etc.
How much discussion is there about networking? In earlier discussions,
special groups for X and GCC have been suggested. Xfree86 is probably
going to get its own group, and there is no need for a group for that
alone. Also, the discussions about X and GCC have almost solely been
about installation problems, and once the installation procedures get
improved, there is little traffic left. How many GCC questions have you
seen lately?
Likewise, I do not think that networking is going to be such a hot topic
for extended periods of time. Once Linux gets networking code that
works well, I doubt that there will be much more to discuss. (Also,
much of the discussion during development is probably going to be on the
NET channel on the linux-activists mailing list.)
>comp.os.linux.non.sequitur -- for inane threads like this
Lets not forget news.groups, alt.flame, and other groups. Even if you
use Linux, the newsgroup you post to doesn't have to have "linux" in its
name. (And yes, I do realize that c.o.l.n.s was not meant that
seriously. My point is, however, meant quite seriously.)
In general I am against splitting, but I could vote for the following:
comp.os.linux.misc (the current c.o.l renamed)
comp.os.linux.announce (moderated, possibly with everything
crossposted to c.o.l.m, and/or to a special mailing
list, e.g. a new channel on linux-activists)
I don't think there is enough traffic to warrant other groups at this
point. I suggest that we do the above (or at least .announce), and then
see what happens afterwards. Linux is so volatile that it is not
a particularly good idea to create lots of new groups based on the
current situation. Next week things could be quite different.
By the way, there was somebody who claimed he had posted a formal RFD
for a split, but I never saw it. What happened?