Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!plains!overby From: overby@plains.NoDak.edu (Glen Overby) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: Split this Newsgroup ... PLEASE! Summary: again.... Message-ID: <5895@plains.NoDak.edu> Date: 15 Sep 90 15:33:44 GMT References: <10717@life.ai.mit.edu> Organization: Silo Tech, FARGO ND Lines: 33 In article <10717@life.ai.mit.edu> cracraft@ai.mit.edu (Stuart Cracraft) writes: >Therefore, why not split the newsgroup into: Want a few good reasons not to? Go join the flame war in comp.unix.wizards (now comp.unix.internals) and maybe you'll get the idea. What function would splitting the newsgroup serve? As you said, you ARE interested in the other machines "at the utility program level and some libraries", so you'd have to read all of the groups anyway. How are you going to get people to rationally select which newsgroup to cast their "HELP ME" questions upon? Heck, just post it to ALL the groups and maybe you'll get an answer! Yeah, that's it! Don't forget about all the people who do not have (or cannot afford) Usenet access and have been forced to resort to the Mailing list side of things. Got anyone to run that many mailing lists? Not me! If you think comp.os.minix is bad, go read any of the msdos newsgroups; I find them all to be higher volume than .minix, with very little worthwhile content. Kill files don't work very well there, either. Now, I do see one good split: create a sources newsgroup (preferably moderated for the sole reason of having consistant organization, Archive-name lines, etc.). Said newsgroup would carry sources unencoded throughout the non-IBM world, and have a encoder on it's BitNet mailing list gateway (yup, I can do that quite easily). The use of Archive-name lines would allow people to much more easily save all the wonderful sources you already see on this group, in an organized fasion (the archive site maintainers are already, in effect, moderators). -- Glen Overby uunet!plains!overby (UUCP) overby@plains (Bitnet)