Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: comp.os.minix splitup Message-ID: <3+2AN33@xds13.ferranti.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC References: <9222@star.cs.vu.nl> <5M.9Z65@xds13.ferranti.com> <9302@star.cs.vu.nl> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 18:26:43 GMT If Andy won't post to a moderated group, that pretty much shoots that whole idea down. :-< In article <9302@star.cs.vu.nl> ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes: > I could live with an unmoderated comp.os.minix.sources or maybe > comp.os.minix.code or comp.os.minix.patches just to emphasize that the group > is not intended for the exclusive posting of public domain sources. I don't see any difference between ".code" and ".sources", but if the name is important then I can go either way. In fact, I'll happily put whatever anyone wants in the CFD, including arguments against it. It is, after all, a Call for Discussion. Now that you've brought the idea up, how do people feel about a ".sources" and a ".patches" group, both? > I would prefer to keep comp.os.minix, but if for technical reasons groups > with the syntactic structure a.b.c.d and a.b.c are not allowed, then > comp.os.minix could become comp.os.minix.d or comp.os.minix.disc. This is not in general a problem, though there are people who have strong feelings in favor of a separate .misc group there's no rule or real technical problem with doing things this way. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"