Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!brolga!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!oat!qut.edu.au!lunnon
From: lunnon@qut.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Sub-dividing comp.os.minix
Message-ID: <1991Mar4.110517.24330@qut.edu.au>
Date: 4 Mar 91 16:05:16 GMT
References: <46267@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Organization: Queensland University of Technology
Lines: 37

In article <46267@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, Paul.Northover@dundee.ncr.com writes:
> Hi,
> 
> I think this one should be on the FAQ :-)
> 
> The main problem with sub-dividing is that many of us receive comp.os.minix via
> a mail relay ("LISTSERV@vm1.NoDak.EDU"). If we were still to receive all the
> postings following a sub-division then additional mail-relays would have to be
> set up.
> 
> In addition it is very difficult to draw a line between what is specific to a
> particular machine and what is of general interest. For instance many utilities
> written for 386 machines that will not run on 8086/80286 machines will work on
> 68000 based machines.
> 
> IMHO if comp.os.minix was split up, and the problem of the mail-relays was
> overcome, then a large majority of people would subscribe to all of the
> sub groups, thus defeating the object of the sub-division.
> 

Should this be a topic for the FAQ list :-)

For my 2c worth, the only worthwhile split is to get the sources into its
own group. Yes, everyone would subscribe to that too but at least it would
be useful to have the sources separated from the talk. I at least would no
longer have to extract all sources and archive them locally in many cases.

	BOB
	R.Lunnon@qut.edu.au



> 
> Paul Northover                              <Paul.Northover@Dundee.NCR.COM>
> NCR Self Service Systems
> Dundee
> Scotland