Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!decuac!haven!mimsy!jds
From: jds@cs.umd.edu (James da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: comp.os.minix split up
Message-ID: <32506@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 5 Apr 91 17:06:54 GMT
References: <1991Apr02.040413PM.8984@demon.co.uk> <1991Apr5.142156.9792@cs.utk.edu>
Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu
Organization: University of Maryland, Department of Computer Science
Lines: 59

nall@cs.utk.edu (John Nall) writes:
>snowboots@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Bray) writes:
>>There seems to be a lot of discussion on this subject, and ast for
>>one seems to be totally against it. However, I would argue that there
>>is one overriding argument in favour of some kind of split up:
>>
>>Assistance for archive sites. 
>  [ discussion material deleted]
>
>    The trouble with this argument is that it is not being made by the
>    people who maintain the archive sites.  If they, as a group, say
>    it needs to be done, and should be done, then I for one would be
>    all for it.  But it seems to me, if I recall correctly, that some
>    of the best arguments against it have come FROM archive site guys!

As an archive site maintainer (The Mars Hotel BBS archive @ 1-301-277-9408)
and grizzled old Minix 1.1 veteran, I guess this is my cue to put in my two
cents worth: I'm going to join the other old-timers who've already spoken
out against a split.  I'm voting NO.

My main reason is that the split would NOT separate the wheat from the
chaff.  I find that some of the discussions are as useful as the code, so I
archive good discussions along with code.  Cruft WILL be posted to the code
group, and pearls WILL appear in the discussion group.  The split would
actually make my job as archive maintainer slightly harder, since I will
have to track both groups.

A split is mainly of help to those who are not interested in investing the
time that Minix still demands.  I predict that we will see an increase in
repeated questions from people who have pulled sources from the code group
but didn't see the discussion that thrashed out how to get the code
actually working.  "Help! I don't normally read the discussion group, but
..."

People who post to the code group are not going to get any more organized
that they are now, so the need to follow everything that is going on will
still be there.  In particular, our fearless leader AST is not always
obsessed with release management: "Well, that program worked on the version
of Minix that existed on my hard disk on the day I posted it." :-)

Then there is the Meta-Discussion-Flame-Factor.  When inappropriate
postings appear in the wrong group they will get flamed, and the flamers
will get flamed, etc.  We've all seen this before in other groups.  I
concede that this might not result in any more traffic than the current
oft-recurring meta-discussion on splitting the group.  It'll be even less
pleasant, however.

Even though I don't think a split is desirable, I would like to heartily
thank Peter da Silva (no relation, BTW) for running the vote so as to
settle the matter once and for all (which on Usenet means: for another few
months :-).

Of course, if the split happens, I WILL archive both groups.

Cheers,
Jaime
...........................................................................
: domain: jds@cs.umd.edu				     James da Silva
: path:   uunet!mimsy!jds		    Systems Design & Analysis Group