Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.apps:1658 comp.os.386bsd.development:3160 comp.os.386bsd.misc:5296 comp.unix.bsd:16096 news.groups:116610
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!uvsq.fr!frmug.fr.net!cett.alcatel-alsthom.fr!not-for-mail
From: archer@cett.alcatel-alsthom.fr (Vincent ARCHER)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.apps,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd,news.groups
Subject: Re: Cannons Away: Vote NO on newsgroup reformation.
Date: 9 Feb 1995 11:49:42 GMT
Organization: Alcatel CIT Le Pecq, France
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <3hcvgn$qj1@tardis-gw.alcatel-alsthom.fr>
References: <D3o5Ew.8x2@nbn.com> <3ha6og$pbk@sidhe.hsc-sec.fr> <kaleb.792253018@exalt> <3hb5bu$er9@park.uvsc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tardis.alcatel-alsthom.fr
Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu> wrote:
>Then "The Usenet cabal" is wrong. The 'os' heirarchy already
>exists, so it is impossible to introduce new redundancy.
We're the Usenet cabal. Unix is V7. All else is beetle dung...
:-)
>Better to compound idiocy in the direction of progress rather
>than the direction of entrenchment; further support for 'comp.unix'
>by adding groups should be *withheld*.
I agree 100% with this.
>At the very worst, however, the seperation of NetBSD and FreeBSD
>by group naming should only apply to religious groups, since the
>posting of source and patches tends to apply to both, as do the
>majority of software configuration, porting, and other questions.
Or, if *really* necessary, to a .internals group (which is, IMHO, a somewhat
better basis for .development).
>The replacement of omp.os.386bsd.{misc,development,apps,...} by a
>single group is at odds with the groups usage. It would be more
>intelligent to have an arrangement like:
...
Why do I have the impression that this look like the RFD?
Having *this kind* of discussion *now* shows that the RFD was flawed,
and the move to CFV should never have been made.
Now, we're stuck with a CFV (that will hopefully fail) and a 6-month wait
before we can do things *right*!
>I would strongly urge that anyone who has voted 'YES' to any part
>of this proposal change their vote to 'NO' before the deadline.
I've got no vote to change. It was NO from the start.
--
Vincent Archer Email: archer@cett.alcatel-alsthom.fr
aka: news@cett.alcatel-alsthom.fr