From: liljeber@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Liljeberg) Subject: Re: NJ/SML Date: 30 Sep 1992 20:13:36 GMT
[ talk about splitting c.o.l deleted ]
During the eight or nine months I've been following comp.os.linux
(and alt.os.linux before that) the subject of splitting this newsgroup
has cropped up and been forcibly squashed for at least half a dozen
times. The way I see it, this reflects the opinion of the majority
rather well. Here's a synopsis of the reasons for and against splitting
c.o.l, as I recall them:
Reasons for:
o Splitting c.o.l to several subgroups would save some
people the bother of learning to use a modern threading
newsreader.
Reasons against:
o A lot of people are following this group via mail digests.
Digestifying a bunch of subgroups is a daunting chore, if
it is to be done well. Crossposting between the subgroups
can easily double the total volume of the group. It will
also make the digest just about unreadable.
o A lot of people are getting c.o.l through Fido-net. I'm told
that gating a newgroup to Fido-net requires a lot effort in
terms of volunteer man-hours, as well as costly hardware.
The immeadiate effect of a split would be that the subgroups
would simply not be gated to Fido-net. At least not soon, if
ever. (Perhaps the people associated with Fido-net etc. would
like to expand on this).
o A lot of people _can_ use threading newsreaders and a great
many of them actually _like_ having it all in a single group
(I'm one of these people).
o Several prominent people in this newsgroup (including Linus
himself) have rather clearly stated that they prefer c.o.l
they way it is. We should listen to these people, because they
are the ones that do most of the work, the ones who have made
Linux into the great OS it is today. We can't risk having these
people get tired of this bickering and wander away, now can we?
(Anyone who considers him/herself a prominent person in c.o.l
and disagrees with the views expressed is invited to comment :-)
I can see the attraction of splitting c.o.l into neatly cathegorized
subgroups, but I also like to think that I'm not so egoistic as to
leave a bunch of people out in the cold, because of personal convenience.
If you wish to reduce the traffic in c.o.l, please direct all flames and
talk about splitting c.o.l to dev.null. You might also want to vote yes
for creating comp.unix.x.Xfree86 (the name may not be accurate). That
should get most of the X related questions out of our collective hair.
I hereby propose that the reasons for _not_ splitting c.o.l be included
in the FAQ, so that newbies would have _some_ idea what they are talking
about, before they start whining about splitting comp.os.linux. This is
only halfway a joke.
Mika