Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!rt2
From: rt2@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Rens Troost)
Subject: Re: Is posting srcs/bins OK here?
Message-ID: <1991Apr22.060838.28918@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Summary: Quit talking and start posting.
Sender: usenet@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: rt2@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Rens Troost)
Organization: Columbia University
References: <1655@richsun.cpg.trs.reuter.com> <9104201711.45@rmkhome.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1991 06:08:38 GMT

I've been watching the discussion flail along for a while, and I'm of the
opinion that this hunger for a c.o.coh tree is a little premature. The
bandwidth on this group is not what you would call large, and much of it
has been devoted to the sources question. When I cast my vote for this
group, I expected a c.o.minix - like group to emerge - the mixture of
sources and discussion on the minix group has been great, and despite some
periodic suggestions for subgroups, the structure has remained for a long
while. Refer to your comp.os.minix archive for the details.

I'll throw my two cents in-
1> sources are useful.
2> too many subgroups make archivers lives hard.
3> the bandwidth on this group is not high enough to choke any mailer.
4> you don't waste an inode on another directory :).

IFF sources become a problem on this group, then decide to fork another
group. But I'd sure be happy to see some sources come this way...especially
if they're easily portable to MINIX. :)

-Rens
rt2@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
rens@gnu.ai.mit.edu