Xref: utzoo comp.unix.internals:137 alt.flame:23264 news.groups:23550 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!crackers!m2c!ulowell!swan!asherman From: asherman@dino.ulowell.edu (Aaron Sherman) Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals,alt.flame,news.groups Subject: Re: c.u.wizards vs. c.u.internals Message-ID: Date: 7 Sep 90 19:34:40 GMT References: <34639@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <18530@rpp386.cactus.org> <26E4EC42.42AB@tct.uucp> <18533@rpp386.cactus.org> <1990Sep7.010347.24458@wolves.uucp> Sender: news@ul-cs.ulowell.edu Followup-To: alt.flame Organization: CPE: University of Lowell -- Lowell, MA Lines: 53 In-reply-to: ggw@wolves.uucp's message of 7 Sep 90 01:03:47 GMT ggw@wolves.uucp (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: In barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) writes: > >> Well, I'm tending to agree with Doug Gwyn. Doug's statement was >> that he wouldn't be able to discuss UNIX internals because his >> license prohibited him from doing so. > >What does the NAME of the newsgroup have to do with anything? > >As I understand it, John and Doug can post Unix(TM) articles in a >newsgroup called comp.unix.spam, but can't legally post a SPAM recipe >to comp.unix.internals? > >No-one said people are *required* to discuss proprietary info in >c.u.i. If your license prevents you from doing so, then don't post >anything proprietary. Hasn't this always been the case? > >Am I missing something here? No, Bruce, you aren't missing anything, except perhaps the view of the pouting faces of Doug Gwyn and John Haugh, III. They are (apparently) quite miffed that "their" newsgroup was renamed under their noses. [...] No, the only thing preventing them from continuing to discuss whatever they were discussing before the group was renamed is a lot of ego. Its too bad that some of the most erudite contributors to c.u.wizards are going to let their inflated sense of self-importance lead them to think that they can abridge the consensus to the net by picking up their ball and going home. It looks more like they are going out into the yard to eat "worms". Hmmm... I think that this is getting a little out of hand. I like the idea of a group as broad in scope as comp.unix.wizards being broken up into several groups. But the name "internals" does suggest discussion of that which some of us have signed agreements not to discuss. Thus I suggest that someone start a vote to change the name to something like "technical". It's too bad that "wizards" was too broad, as it tended to keep the l^Huser questions out (sometimes :), and managed not to sound like we were giving away internal secrets. No matter what we do, lets keep flames like the above out of it. -AJS -- asherman@dino.ulowell.edu or asherman%cpe@swan.ulowell.edu Note that as of 7/18/90 that's asherman@dino.cpe.ulowell.edu "That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is."