Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: Divisions of net.unix* Message-ID: <1021@opus.UUCP> Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 20:12:12 EST Article-I.D.: opus.1021 Posted: Wed Jan 16 20:12:12 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 01:38:29 EST References: <823@amdahl.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO Lines: 25 > Every once in a while, I propose spliting it into smaller, more > sensible pieces by creating new subgroups of net.unix. The > problem is that this idea has not received wide-ranging support > (perhaps due to apathy, or lack of audience) and nothing comes of it. > > Well, I'm back again. OK, let me voice some negative support, lest a lack of response be interpreted again as apathy...I haven't seen so much appearing in net.unix* that one couldn't wade through it pretty quickly. It's easy enough to recognize the articles you want to see and dodge the n-th order followups to topics which are no longer of interest or weren't to start with. It helps if the Subject lines make sense, of course. There are some minor costs to splitting newsgroups, such as folks who don't know how to do a multiple-group posting when that's appropriate. But the major issue is really whether the split will do any good. If most of us who read and submit to net.unix and net.unix-wizards end up reading and following all of the proposed net.unix.* groups, we haven't gained anything by the split. There are some exceptional topics, like material suited for a net.unix.politics, but chances are that people would neither post to that nor read it. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.