From: wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) Subject: Re: Splitting comp.os.linux, again Date: 22 Oct 1992 16:02:04 GMT
alsaggaf@athena.mit.edu (M. Saggaf) writes:
>I haven't made up my mind yet wither a split would be appropriate or
>not. I'll wait till the CFV for that. As for the proposed new
>subgroups, why re-invent the wheel? other os groups have subgroups and
Because Linux is a Unix clone, there is little need for Linux specific
groups, since most of the topics are more suitable for the corresponding
comp.unix subgroups. For example, most of the traffic that
comp.os.linux.programmer would draw to itself, would most probably be
stuff that is not Linux specific (it would only be in c.o.l.p because
the people asking would be using Linux), and belongs to
comp.unix.programmer instead.
I still don't see why people what "linux" to be part of the newsgroup
name. Maybe if the newsgroup were called comp.unix.linux, people
wouldn't be so reluctant to use comp.unix.programmer and friends.
I just don't see that there is enough need to create a half dozen new
groups yet. Maybe in a year or so, but not sooner.
> *.announce
>
>There seems to be a consensus that such a group is appropriate.
Agreed. This one should be created as soon as possible.
> *.programmer
General Unix programming questions should go to comp.unix.programmer.
There may be some need to discuss porting problems directly related to
Linux (and not, for example, POSIX), but I don't think those are enough
of traffic that they need a group of their own.
> *.apps
Since most BBS software that would run under Linux also runs under a lot
of other Unices, is there really a need for comp.os.linux.apps, instead
of using the suitable comp.unix subgroup? I don't think so. Discussions
of the relative merits of various software packages are seldom directly
related to Linux.
> *.windows
The problems with Xfree86 installation are more or less the same
regardless of the platform (or so I am told), and general X usage
belongs to comp.windows.x or somewhere. There is almost no discussion
about MGR on the newsgroups, so creating a group for it is stupid.
(That is a general principle: create groups for which there is traffic,
not groups for which you hope there will someday be traffic.)
> *.hardware
>
>This a very relevant group.
I don't think so.
> *.advocacy
Try alt.flame instead. .advocacy groups are evil. I will vote against
c.o.l.advocacy under all circumstances.
> *.misc
>
>This is to hold discussions about topics that do not fit any other
>subgroup and to replace comp.os.linux.
Agreed.