Subject: Re: RFD on splitting comp From: bill.davidsen@lill.frmug.fr.mugnet.org (Bill Davidsen) Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 12:57:00 +0001
ÿ@SUBJECT:Re: RFD on splitting comp.os.linux
Message-ID: <C7qMoC.Lyu@crdnns.crd.ge.com>
Newsgroup: comp.os.linux,news.groups
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Chris Meshkin (meshkin@sol.cs.wmich.edu) writes
| OK, since someone else started it, here's my 2 cents...
| comp.os.linux.announce (moderated) just like it stands.
| comp.os.linux.setup (unmoderated) setup and configuration questions.
| comp.os.linux.coding (unmoderated) hacks, advanced "howto" questions, etc.
| comp.os.linux.software (unmoderated) complete software packages.
| comp.os.linux.advocacy (unmoderated) flame wars, general trumpeting.
| better names might be .flames or
| .is.better.than.xxx :)
| comp.os.linux.bugs? (unmoderated) bug reports, fixes, patches.
| probably redundant since bugs would
| most likely be dealt with in .software
| and .coding.
I think we need a group for discussion of peripherals and device
drivers, may I suggest calling it "c.o.l.interfaces"? And perhaps one
for X questions, although I would like input from some of the server
developers on that. Questions about using certain video boards would fit
into interfaces, so I don't know if an X group is redundant and
confusing.
Where would discussion of various collections (mcc, tamu, sls) take
place? It's not clear if software is intended to mean packages in the
sense of programs, such as 'sc', or collections. After Chris clarifies
this I may have more comments, but I don't want to sound like I'm
flaming when I'm just not clear about the intent of the group.
--
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; 518-387-6489
Look for a new corporate affiliation, coming to this space soon.