Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!philapd!ssp11!willy From: willy@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Willy Konijnenberg) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: Proposal to split up comp.os.minix Message-ID: <198@ssp11.idca.tds.philips.nl> Date: 27 Feb 89 10:40:59 GMT References: <109.24078AE4@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> Organization: Philips Telecommunication and Data Systems, The Netherlands Lines: 28 In article <109.24078AE4@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes: > comp.binaries.minix.ibm - IBM Minix binary postings. > comp.binaries.minix.st - Atari ST Minix binary postings. > comp.sources.minix.ibm - IBM Minix source postings. > comp.sources.minix.st - Atari ST Minix source postings. > comp.os.minix - Current comp.os.minix group, but > without binary or source postings. I think this is overdoing it a bit. 1. I would prefer to *discourage* binary postings. If you have a program that compiles on minix, post the source! There are, of course, these rare occasions where a program is usefull, can run on minix, but won't compile on minix. 2. Minix is unix, unix is supposed to encourage portable programming. Most sources should work on both PC, ST, Amiga, Transputer, 32032, or any other port of minix. If different architectures require minor modifications, then produce a single source with appropriate ifdefs, instead of different sources for every architecture. If source is not portable, then it must: be part of the kernel be a system administration tool contain bugs So, *IF* we want to split, 2 groups should be enough. One for sources and the like, the other for discussions, ideas, questions, etc. I don't know if we really need to split. Any ideas? -- Willy Konijnenberg