Xref: utzoo news.admin:7659 comp.os.vms:19730 Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!think!snorkelwacker!spdcc!xylogics!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.os.vms Subject: Re: New newsgroup hierarchy Message-ID: <1989Nov19.181003.10968@world.std.com> Date: 19 Nov 89 18:10:03 GMT References: <1618.25614348@mccall.uucp> <1989Nov17.174318.21963@world.std.com> <1666.25659fe1@mccall.uucp> Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Lines: 67 In-Reply-To: tp@mccall.uucp's message of 18 Nov 89 18:30:57 GMT From: tp@mccall.uucp >I think I'd get flamed a lot worse for proposing a new slate of groups (as >above). Note that only one of those groups exists (comp.sources.d). I think your project would be a lot more successful if it was done with a sense of cooperation rather than as a mandate. If the groups need to exist they would be created, if they don't I don't see how doing an end-run around the whole system is likely to help. >There's nothing wrong with cross posting. However, where does the problem >come in. There is only one vms group on the net right now (comp.os.vms). And comp.os.vms is a very big, busy group, that's enough to consider the point. And there are dozens other groups with strong relevance, how about comp.periphs, comp.protocols.tcpip, comp.org.decus, comp.protocols.iso.*, comp.newprod, comp.laser-printers, com.dcom.modems, comp.lang.fortran, comp.lang.ada, comp.sources.misc, comp.windows.x, comp.sources.x, etc. etc. etc. >Having our own hierarchy gets us out of your way, you (generic, not you >specifically) out of our way, and will hopefully allow peaceful >coexistance. Oh, thank you. You know, this whole "we're doing you a favor" position is meant to be nothing but feigned obsequiousness. I'm not fooled, so don't bother. Getting back to real issues, the fallacy y'all are laboring under (as good as your motives might ultimately be) is that there hasn't been participation from the VMS community on a lot of groups in the USENET (including forming groups), THEREFORE, you'll create a whole namespace where the letters VMS appear a lot and then all this great stuff, free software, bug-fixes, new products etc will just start flowing like an oil gusher. Look! We created vmsnet.sources.games! Now we'll have lots of games! (horsefeathers, this note is going to comp.os.vms/info-vax, what games are you folks sitting on which you haven't posted because you didn't have a vmsnet.sources.games group? I welcome public responses.) I think it's a fallacy, no one ever discouraged the VMS community from being involved in the USENET beyond the fact that few sites had appropriate software to be news sites (certainly that solution was always in their hands! That software exists on Unix, MS/DOS etc because someone sat down and wrote it, it didn't come from heaven.) Many groups existed which have accepted VMS software, protocol questions etc etc when submitted, it just rarely shows up, and if that grew in volume the groups would have been quickly subdivided. If the USENET is so UNIX-biased (as some seem to be saying) then how do you explain that the Macintosh, MS/DOS and Amiga groups are among the ten highest volume groups on this network? I think the whole idea is based on flawed reasoning even if I believed the offered reasons (and I don't, I still think it's just a lot of grandstanding and some alligator tears.) -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs