Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!ames!usenet.kornet.nm.kr!usenet.etri.re.kr!news.kreonet.re.kr!bofh.dot!news.dacom.co.kr!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.thepoint.net!news1!not-for-mail From: root@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Subject: Re: Advocacy in comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc (was Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD ...) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dyson.iquest.net Message-ID: <4o4aup$vb@dyson.iquest.net> Sender: news@iquest.net (News Admin) Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine References: <3188C1E2.45AE@onramp.net> <4ngunq$oeu@agate.berkeley.edu> <319D5A48.772399AA@lambert.org> <31a4f9fd.0@sylvia.tummy.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 12:44:09 GMT Lines: 36 In article <31a4f9fd.0@sylvia.tummy.com>, Sean Reifschneider <jafo@ariel.tummy.com> wrote: >In article <319D5A48.772399AA@lambert.org>, >Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> wrote: >>] Discussion about FreeBSD which does not fall into the area >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^-------------------- >>As in "*NOT* about Linux". > >So would a discussion about FreeBSD and Linux go in a Linux group or >a FreeBSD group, or would you rather not hear it at all? Personally >I think both camps can learn something interesting from the other. > My opinion: It would be maybe a good idea for a FreeBSD advocacy group to appear somewhere? Wouldn't it be nice if all of the advocacy were well informed? Unfortunately, much of the advocacy that I have seen in other groups is void of accurate information. It would be nice to keep the SNR (quality) of comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc high. IMO, much of the advocacy that I have seen in other OSes groups doesn't even deserve to be in the comp.* hierarchy, but appears to be more applicable to the alt.* or junk.* :-), hierarchies... I guess what I am trying to say is that perhaps FreeBSD needs an advocacy group to keep many of the inaccurate assertions in an area where people who are actually interested in high quality information content are not going to be mis/dis informed (or just as bad, their time isn't going to be wasted by reading statements equivalent to ***** rulez, under a subject heading that appears to have valid content!!!.) Those people interested in seeing alternative, underinformed or emotional views then can read the advocacy group. There are always going to be mistaken or erroneous info in the *.misc group, but it doesn't help the truth to encourage contribution of such info... John