Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: comp.os.minix splitup
Message-ID: <3+2AN33@xds13.ferranti.com>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
References: <klamer.668248951@mi.eltn.utwente.nl> <9222@star.cs.vu.nl> <5M.9Z65@xds13.ferranti.com> <9302@star.cs.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 18:26:43 GMT

If Andy won't post to a moderated group, that pretty much shoots that
whole idea down. :-<

In article <9302@star.cs.vu.nl> ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes:
> I could live with an unmoderated comp.os.minix.sources or maybe 
> comp.os.minix.code or comp.os.minix.patches just to emphasize that the group
> is not intended for the exclusive posting of public domain sources.

I don't see any difference between ".code" and ".sources", but if the name
is important then I can go either way. In fact, I'll happily put whatever
anyone wants in the CFD, including arguments against it. It is, after all,
a Call for Discussion.

Now that you've brought the idea up, how do people feel about a ".sources"
and a ".patches" group, both?

> I would prefer to keep comp.os.minix, but if for technical reasons groups
> with the syntactic structure a.b.c.d and a.b.c are not allowed, then
> comp.os.minix could become comp.os.minix.d or comp.os.minix.disc.

This is not in general a problem, though there are people who have strong
feelings in favor of a separate .misc group there's no rule or real technical
problem with doing things this way.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
