Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!bcm!rice!uw-beaver!milton!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!cunyvm!ndsuvm1!plains!overby From: overby@plains.NoDak.edu (Glen Overby) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: CFD: comp.os.minix. Message-ID: <8657@plains.NoDak.edu> Date: 2 Mar 91 02:56:13 GMT References: <18baba4b.ARN1933@acdhq.north.de> Organization: Geeks of the Round Table Lines: 28 In article <18baba4b.ARN1933@acdhq.north.de> kaba@acdhq.north.de writes: >What about creating subgroups that can hold minix-topics that are related >to a special hardware, like "Does minix run on my 386?" or "Is there a >drive available for my Amiga-harddrive-controller?" and so on? ... Again ... This is not logical. While there are many machine-dependent issues, many of them have implications across ALL machines. Minix is a Portable Operating System, isn't it? It runs on 4 processor platforms (Intel, NS32K, M68k, SPARC) which is more than you can say for 95% of the operating systems out there. The two case questions you mentioned are best handled in the Commonly Asked Questions postings, but nobody really reads those. I don't think splitting comp.os.minix along processor lines would be beneficial. I believe it would create a LOT of cross-posting which would wreak havoc on the 400-odd mailing list subscribers (they'd get to read it N times, where N is the number of groups a given message is cross-posted to). YUK! Besides, the volume of comp.os.minix these days is only about 2 dozen articles a day, on the average. That's not all that bad, really. Judicious use of 'kill' or kill files makes it quite manageable. -- Glen Overby uunet!plains!overby (UUCP) overby@plains (Bitnet)