From: alsaggaf@athena.mit.edu (M. Saggaf) Subject: Re: Splitting comp.os.linux, again Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1992 23:19:44 GMT
In article <1992Oct22.160204.12377@klaava.Helsinki.FI> wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) writes:
>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 respectfully disagree. I wish people would recognize that linux is
different from other Unices in two respects:
* That the number of its potential users is huge. This just reflects
the popularity of the PC archeticture. Let's face it, linux is
spreading like the plague (for the good, though). This is why the
volume in comp.os.linux is so high. I can safely say that the number
of linux users has more than doubled in the last six months or so,
and it will continue to increase at a similar rate for some time to
come.
* That most of the people converting to linux come from the DOS world.
Many have been Unix 'users', but nothing more. The concept of
maintainig a Unix system (worrying about programs that do not work,
fixing permissions, trying to make things work with their hardwar,
..etc.) is new to them.
This makes having linux subgroups that at first glance seem to
duplicate some general Unix ones very appropriate. Many people would
like to know whither the AST FourPort would work under linux. Asking
such a question in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware would be meaningless.
However, it would be entirely suitable for c.o.l.hardware. The same goes
for VGA cards and such. Most people (me included) do not want to wade
through hundreds of articles that describe bugs in Epoch under A/IX,
SunOS, ..etc. What they want to know is whither it will work for them
under linux and where they could find it. This is why c.ol.apps would
be valuable. And so on and so forth for the other subgroups.
Believe me, most readers of the general Unix groups would not
appreciate hundreds of newbie linux questions in their groups, even
if those questions are somewhat relevant. I have seen many complaints
in comp.unix.bsd from users of BSD systems other than 386BSD
complainig about users of the latter system 'taking over' their group.
Please note that I mean these remarks in the most friendly manner. As I
said before, I have still to make up my mind as to whither a split at
all would be proper (taking into account how that would harm some
Fidonet people). I'll leave that till CFV. However, a discussion
of what subgroups to suggest in the CFV is nonetheless timely.
>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.
>
Oh no. Please. We don't want another AT&T suit on our backs.
[rest of quoted article omitted. By the way, Lars, I wish you would
indicate what parts you omitted from the article you quote. You
completely massacred my article and the parts you quoted no are no
longer in context to someone who didn't read the original. Anyhow,
this is just a friendly reminder]