From: pgr@prg.ox.ac.uk (Partially Grown Rhododendron) Subject: Re: Splitting comp.os.linux, again Date: 25 Oct 1992 21:38:33 GMT
In <1992Oct25.170301.1223@athena.mit.edu>, M. Saggaf <alsaggaf@athena.mit.edu>
writes:
[about splitting by type]
> I think this type of split is very inappropriate, [...]
> ... according to the above proposal, even if someone is interested only
> in gcc or X, he has to subscribe to *.announce to learn about new
> programs, to *.bug to find out about bugs, to *.help to answer his
> questions, and to *.discuss for a discussion of the topic he/she is
> interested in (say, gcc).
If somebody is interested in GCC, they read the appropriate newsgroups
in the rest of the Usenet hierarchy. Ditto for X. And bugs related to
either of them, or just about anything else. None of these need, or
should, be under the c.o.l.* hierarchy since they are *NOT* generally
Linux specific.
The fact that people are postings articles of this nature at the moment
is only showing that people are inappropriately posting to c.o.l.
(If people posted appropriately, there wouldn't be a need for the split
in the first place, of course -- if there was some way of encouraging them
to them that would seem to be a more productive route than a c.o.l split.)
[...]
> I will restate here only the summary of my previous proposal, [...]
Well, out of the list I agree with *.announce and *.misc (ditto with the
main proposal).
> *.programmer
Linux programmers? Oh, you mean kernel hackers. There is an active
mailing list for that. Or do you mean a more generic term? In which
case, it is not Linux specific (just GCC then talk in either comp.lang.c
or gnu.bugs.gcc).
> *.apps
How many *Linux* specific applications are there? Not many that I can see.
> *.windows (or *.x)
This is covered by the windows.x.i386unix RFD. No need for Linux specific.
> *.hardware
How much Linux specific hardware is there? None that I can see.
> *.advocacy
No comment on this. I don't really see any point in it, though. Argue
about it if you like :-)
phil richards