Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cyb-eng.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!ut-sally!cyb-eng!bc From: bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) Newsgroups: net.arch,net.unix-wizards,net.lan,net.news.group Subject: Re: net.os Message-ID: <783@cyb-eng.UUCP> Date: Tue, 12-Nov-85 12:32:22 EST Article-I.D.: cyb-eng.783 Posted: Tue Nov 12 12:32:22 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 14-Nov-85 02:52:52 EST References: <2466@sjuvax.UUCP> <1594@utcsri.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Cyb Systems, Austin, TX Lines: 26 Xref: watmath net.arch:2082 net.unix-wizards:15693 net.lan:1145 net.news.group:4504 > I feel we need a net.os to discuss operating system topics. Right now > this is spread all over the net, mainly in heavily used groups like > unix-wizards. Unix isn't everything, and even there it would be nice to > have a discussion not buried by discussion of bugs, etc. > > I said all this a couple of months ago, got about thirty responses, > only to be told "you didn't go about it the right way", which I think > is a little crazy to be told after the fact. I now understand that the > right way to do it is to swamp the net. So if you want net.os, use your > 'f' (not 'F') key NOW! A basic fallacy in the logic of having existing net traffic indicate the need for a new newsgroup is that current postings are often suppressed due to the inadequacy of existing forums. Particularly in the case of net.os: is one to believe that an IMPARTIAL discussion of an operating system principle which is NOT incorportated in Unix today could POSSIBLY take place in net.unix-wizards? I would VERY MUCH like to see a net.os, and the articles I might post to such a group are NOT being posted ANYWHERE yet. So I think this will result in an increase in overall net traffic, and I think that, in this case, that is good. I would imagine the situation was probably similar in the case of net.database. -- - bc - ..!{seismo,topaz,gatech,nbires,ihnp4}!ut-sally!cyb-eng!bc (512) 835-2266