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: <1N4A6J9@xds13.ferranti.com>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
References: <5M.9Z65@xds13.ferranti.com> <9302@star.cs.vu.nl> <3+2AN33@xds13.ferranti.com> <9369@star.cs.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 16:11:19 GMT

In article <9369@star.cs.vu.nl> ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes:
> The argument against comp.sources.minix is simply that lots of people who
> know nothing about MINIX will read it expecting complete C programs.  When
> they see an endless stream of cdiffs, they will go into flame mode.  Calling
> it comp.os.minix.code clearly indicates that it is not analogous to 
> comp.*.sources.*

Makes sense, I guess. Past experience with alt.source-code and other
innovatively named groups tends to make me a bit skeptical of new
adventures in group naming. In any case, I'll include that in the CFD.

> The disadvantage of .misc is that it suggests that the odds and ends go
> there that didn't fit in elsewhere, as in comp.os.misc.  It is my
> expectation that "comp.os.minix.misc" would be the main group.

Like comp.sys.amiga.misc? I don't see any reason to move comp.os.minix
itself around... but I'll include this in the CFD.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"