Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:6584 comp.sources.wanted:15529 alt.sources.d:1542 alt.sources.wanted:992 news.groups:28302
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!twinsun!usenet
From: eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,comp.sources.wanted,alt.sources.d,alt.sources.wanted,news.groups
Subject: comp.sources.reviewed -> comp.sources.posix
Message-ID: <1991Mar1.163137.293@twinsun.com>
Date: 1 Mar 91 16:31:37 GMT
References: <1991Feb28.053121.7739@rick.doc.ca> <1991Feb28.160555.8446@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM> <1991Mar1.082855.149@tfl.dk>
Sender: usenet@twinsun.com
Organization: Twin Sun, Inc
Lines: 20
Nntp-Posting-Host: burns

I also have been troubled by the overbroad mandate and poorly chosen
name of comp.sources.reviewed.  We used to have newsgroups with poorly
chosen names containing `moderated' or `mod', but I had thought we
learned our lesson that newsgroup names should reflect their contents,
not their editorial methods.

But karsten@tfl.dk writes:

>Many of the bested public domain packages have been ported from UNIX
>to other operating systems, and some the other way.  In the future, we
>can expect people will comply with the posix standards, which will
>supported on many operating systems.  So in the future packages will
>not be for one operating system.

This suggests that for sanity's sake, the newsgroup will stick to Posix
(or at least Posix-like) applications.  It also suggests that competent
reviewers will check for Posix conformance.  This will indeed be a
service to the computing community.  If so, I suggest that the name of
the proposed newsgroup be changed to `comp.sources.posix', because it
will reflect the newsgroup's contents far more accurately.