Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!cunyvm!ndsuvm1!ndsuvax!ncoverby From: ncoverby@ndsuvax.UUCP (Glen Overby) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: Proposal to split up comp.os.minix Summary: Sources and Discussion group. Keywords: split Message-ID: <2242@ndsuvax.UUCP> Date: 4 Mar 89 01:15:31 GMT References: <109.24078AE4@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> Reply-To: ncoverby@ndsuvax.UUCP (Glen Overby) Followup-To: comp.os.minix Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo Lines: 63 In article <109.24078AE4@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes: >I've only been on this newsgroup for 5 months, but I've noticed that >there are a lot of people that read this group that don't have both an >ST and an IBM. Thus, either the ST or the IBM binary/source postings >are useless (depending on which machine you have). Therefore, I think >that it would be a good idea to split up comp.os.minix into 5 groups: There have been many calls for a split, and I expect that there will be many more, and until the volume and disorganization gets much more severe than it is now, they will all get shot down. I see the following types of postings in this group: (1) questions, problems (2) bug reports and fixes (3) new "unofficial" programs (i.e. not from Andy or Johan) (4) official updates (from Andy or Johan) Splitting the questions and problems into separate groups for the Atari ST and IBM PC would be counterproductive, I think. We are both running one base system (the Minix sources) and many of the problems will exist in both systems. I, for one, would read both groups even though I am stuck running only MINIX-PC. If the groups were split, I think that there would be a lot of crossposting. Bug reports fall into the same category as (1). Both groups should remain unmoderated. It would nice to make separate groups out of the last two categories, IF they were moderated. I don't think there is the volume to merit a group for both machines, and I don't think there is much use to! Anybody halfway serious about Minix SHOULD be tracking both groups to see what the other half of the brain is doing. Why subscribe to a mild form of facism by have a moderator? Well, the postings can be serialized so that receivers can be assured that they've gotten everything, non-source postings can be eliminated ("straight signal"), and archives can be maintained with a consistent organization. As an archive site maintainer, I find myself doing a lot of the work which I believe a moderator would do, but I work in bursts, when I have time, normally on a long weekend from school. Thats not too good for a Usenet moderator. The latter category would fit in somewhat similar to comp.bugs.4bsd.ucb-fixes; that is, ONLY fixes from Andy and Johan. So far, they haven't been doing these updates that often and that group could be merged with a moderated Minix sources group, probably making Andy and Johan sub-moderators with posting privileges (sort of like the Australian sub-moderator for comp.sources.unix). Binaries should be banished from the group except in special cases, one being programs which CANNOT be compiled under Minix (like elle and kermit). I consider the recent binary postings all "noise". Give me the sources and I'll compile the things myself! You don't have to be RMS to want sources! In summary, I think the content of comp.os.minix fits into two categories: discussions and bug reports and sources and updates. Even though two different machines are being discussed, they have a LOT in common and do benefit from being discussed in one place; the volume isn't really that high, and rn "kill" files do a nice job of eliminating fluff. Sources, on the other hand, would benefit from another group WITH a moderator. Without one, it would be mere chaos and we'd be no better off than we are now. -- Glen Overby uunet!ndsuvax!ncoverby ncoverby@ndsuvax (Bitnet)