From: jwinstea@fenris.claremont.edu (Jim Winstead Jr.) Subject: Re: The Zen of Linux, part 2 Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 04:21:00 GMT
In article <1ujopa$muf@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU> mdw@TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh) writes:
As I have said, the best split for c.o.l will be one where only a few,
well-defined groups are created. These being:
comp.os.linux.announce
Already there, of course, and is fairly under-utilized. It would be
interesting if people were to write brief (50 lines or so) answers to
common questions. They should be a little more complete than the
answers in the FAQ (and they could address more exotic things), and
after some time, quite a number of answers could be built up.
comp.os.linux.kernel (or .development)
I like .development, if only for the cool acronym.
comp.os.linux.questions
comp.os.linux.misc
What is the distinction between these two groups?
This provides for the most open-ended and flexible grouping of
discussions. Again, I stress that we should not have a newsgroup
devoted to things such as TCP/IP, X-Windows, or SLS. All of these
are overly specific, and such discussions will be subject to
crossposting to other groups above. This is what we wish to avoid.
Agreed.
As for XWindows, XFree86 is not a Linux-only product. See
comp.windows.x.i386unix. The only Linux-specific issues of XFree86
deal with hardware (and thus a c.o.l.hardware may be worthy of
discussion).
How are hardware issues the slightest bit Linux-specific?