Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:5333 comp.unix.bsd:16124 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!jkh From: jkh@violet.berkeley.edu (Jordan K. Hubbard) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Put the Cannons Away: Vote YES on newsgroup reformation. Date: 11 Feb 1995 06:31:29 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 21 Message-ID: <3hhlk1$fc9@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <D3o5Ew.8x2@nbn.com> <3hdu9u$rhm@park.uvsc.edu> <3hegvm$plp@agate.berkeley.edu> <hm.792410152@hcswork.hcs.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu In article <hm.792410152@hcswork.hcs.de>, Hellmuth Michaelis <hm@hcswork.hcs.de> wrote: >Furthermore i don't like the manifestation of the split into Net/Free-BSD >which will occur by removing the 386bsd subgroups. When this will be done >the two don't even have a newsgroup in common and this will be the last >step in separating the two groups. (I am aware of the facts and causes Ah, well now this is an entirely different argument, and one that actually supports the split. The fact of the matter is that both groups have entirely different destinies now and you can't change that with one bogusly named and shared newsgroup. It's a farce. When Microsoft and IBM went their separate ways with OS/2, IBM didn't keep using the joint-letterhead stationary for a year afterwards just for the happy memories of their relationship it brought them. If we're going to go our own way then we're just going to do it all the way, and no wishy-washy sentiments about it. We have entirely different people, methods, goals, mailing lists, organizational ethos, you name it. So why shouldn't we have our own newsgroups then? The exceedingly minescule amount of shared FreeBSD/NetBSD bonhomie on comp.os.386bsd.* is certainly something I can continue living without! Jordan