Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!udel!mmdf
From: wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: comp.os.minix splitup
Message-ID: <48210@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 19 Mar 91 21:56:59 GMT
Sender: mmdf@ee.udel.edu
Lines: 50


Andrew Micheal wrote:
>Whoops - really a few too many reals there, I really think .....
>More seriously, though ...
>
> [Discussion of not splitting by CPU types]

	I agree.

>This leaves the question of splitting the newsgroup on source and non-source
>lines.  As I see it, the proposal to split the group is because some people
>don't like seeing all the "Where can I buy MINIX" articles.  I agree
>that they can be a pain sometimes, but what happens if all the 'serious' MINIX
>people only look at the sources group ?  Will all the enquirers just be
>ignored ?

	Any 'serious" MINIX person is going to "read" (skim?) both groups
anyway.  The "discussion" group for discussion of problems/solutions/ideas,
etc. and the "code" group for large (or small) contributions to the MINIX
environment.  I will admit there is going to be an overlap between the two.
i.e. Where do you post a two line change to a file which solves somebody's
problem?  I would send it to both.  If we are talking about newsgroups here,
a crossposting to more then one group doesn't affect the amount of traffic at
all.  If we are talking about more then one mailing list, there might be
some additional traffic, but not much.  If it seems appropriate and the
people who currently manage the mailing list are willing to do so, the list
could be "cloned" and people would be given the opportunity to subscribe to
one or both of them.  Or the single merged mailing list could continue with
two submission addresses.  This would allow people who get access via e-mail
to still specify which of the two newsgroups is more appropriate for their
message.  Many people would probably? only read the "discussion" group and
depend on archive sites when they need sources.

	That brings up the big advantage that I see.  It would make it MUCH
easier for archivers to automatically save "code" postings.  Many people
can't afford the space or time to store every piece of code that comes down
the chute.  Or just weren't around when it was posted.  (Re: request for
"fastkey" recently.)  Automatic archiving of such "code" and generation of
indices could be done.  Contributers could be encouraged to include
"Description:"  lines in their "code" postings in order provide the
necessary information.  If no "Description:" line was provided the "Subject:"
line might do as a rough substitute.

	I think comp.os.minix.code would be an appropriate name and it
should be unmoderated.

				Bill Bogstad

P.S.  Some people might say I talk about Minix alot, but don't get much
done.  They are probably right.