From: piggy@hilbert.cc.utas.edu.au (La Monte Yarroll) Subject: Re: Splitting comp.os.linux, again Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 23:42:26 GMT
[My appologies to my Australian readers--you'll be seeing this for the
second time--I had set my distribution incorrectly.]
[This is iwj@cam-orl.co.uk (Ian Jackson)'s proposed split:]
comp.os.linux.announce
comp.os.linux.help
comp.os.linux.bug
comp.os.linux.discuss
comp.os.linux.misc
[This is M. Sagaff <alsaggaf@athena.mit.edu>'s proposed split:]
*.announce
*.programmer
*.apps
*.windows (or *.x)
*.hardware
*.advocacy
*.misc
I find M. Saggaf's proposal much more appealing simply because I would
subscribe to fewer of his proposed groups than to those proposed by
Ian Jackson.
I have some more comments on Ian Jackson's proposal:
> comp.os.linux.discuss
>
> Discussions. Arguments. Stuff like this thread and recent threads on
> /usr/bin vs /bin etc.
>
> comp.os.linux.misc
>
> Anything that doesn't fall into one of the above groups. No articles
> here should be crossposted to any of the other col groups.
I've found that discuss and misc groups tend to have little
differentiation in practice. I don't have an example I can throw out
right away--I suppose this is more of an accumulate impression than a
concrete objection.
> comp.os.linux.bug
...
>- "me too" postings
Should not "me too" postings be strictly by email? I had always
believed that they were Netiqette no-nos.
[It has since been explained to me that "me too" postings for bugs are
quite alright, and even beneficial.]