Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!uupsi!sunic!dkuug!tfl.dk!karsten From: karsten@tfl.dk Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: comp.sources.reviewed -> comp.sources.posix Message-ID: <1991Mar9.130719.153@tfl.dk> Date: 9 Mar 91 12:07:18 GMT References: <1991Mar2.194702.18667@tridom.uucp> <1991Mar3.051242.5879@twinsun.com> <353@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US> Organization: TFL, A Danish Telecommunication Research Laboratory Lines: 26 In article , karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: > Wasn't the original plan of this whole thing to just have another moderated > sources group for times when the other ones were stuck? Then it became this > peer review experiment and now it's posix? > > What happened to the idea of comp.sources.unix2 or whatever the heck it's > to be called? That was the original problem I thought we were trying to > solve, and we seem to've completely lost sight of it. The proposal that has been discussed in news.groups and is now being voted about is comp.sources.reviewed. I have never seen anyone taking action for a comp.sources.unix2. The discussion about renaming c.s.r to c.s.p started with somebody (sorry, I have forgotten who) quoting me. I was discussing why why I did not think comp.sources.reviewed should be restricted to UNIX. I mentioned that we can expect a number of non UNIX operating systems to become POSIX compliant. It was never my idea that comp.sources.reviewed should be restricted to POSIX or UNIX. I admit that most public domain software is for UNIX, but the best is frequently ported to other operating systems. Besides we have comp.sources.unix for UNIX software. Why making a copy? Karsten Nyblad TFL, A Danish Telecommunication Research Laboratory E-mail: karsten@tfl.dk