NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/unix/bsd/4599

Text File | 1992-08-23 | 5.9 KB | 130 lines

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: [e-mail] (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: time for comp.unix.bsd.386
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 20:23:34 GMT
Lines: 118

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric W. Ziegast) writes:
>[e-mail] writes:
>> This discussion has come up before.  You should:
>
>Terry's suggestions lead one to think that it's only the 386BSD and
>BSDI topics that are keeping this group alive.

No, it's simply a call for a rational reason why this should be done.  My
first question (following) is wondering how many of the questions are bsd
related at all rather than not even generally applicable to bsd at all.  This
is the traffic whih should be moved elsewhere (like comp.unix.questions).

>> o    Find out just how many "plain old bsd questions" occur here as
>>     opposed to comp.unix.questions.
>
>General BSD discussion is what this group is for, isn't it?
>The 386BSD never started out with their own group.  They took over
>this one.  At least the USL/BSDI/suit posters moved (most of) their
>discussion to alt.suit.att-bsdi.

Yes, and those that haven't probably don't get alt groups, or worse, get 10-20
"approved" groups of which alt.suit.att-bsdi and comp.os.386bsd would not be
one.

>The 386BSD people talk more about bugs/failures/successes/questions
>about 386BSD than topics regarding BSD in a broader sense.  For
>those who don't care about 386BSD, it's a waste of bandwidth.

I'd question the validity of this statement.  With CSRG going away, what "BSD"
will you talk about?  BSDI?  Ultrix?  Ultrix is soon going to be OSF, which
is a long was from BSD; besides, there's already comp.unix.ultrix.  I think
for "BSD-like" OSes, there are already groups.  Since CSRG has announced
that there isn't going to be a BSD 4.5 (at least not from them), what exactly
"general bsd, not a particular system" will there be to talk about?  The only
things I see are 4.4, Mt. Xinu (comp.os.xinu), 386BSD, and BSDI.

>> o    Name a better place besides a bunch of 4.3 kernel and app hackers
>>     to ask a BSD question.
>
>Could you be more specific?

The people who are currently using 386BSD don't tend to be end users.  They
are basically classifiable as 4.3 kernel hackers, mostly because they have
to be.  I doubt that there is a larger gathering of BSD kernel hackers in any
other news group.  I suspect more than one "general bsd question" has been
answered by "a 386BSD person".

>> o    Find out how much traffic would be left if 386BSD/BSDI moved elsewhere.
>
>Ok, I parsed/browsed through 757 comp.unix.bsd postings from the past
>two weeks and found:
>
>    386BSD: 498+ articles relating to bugs, successes, failures, questions
>        and answers relating to 386BSD.
>
>    BSDI:    ~70 articles related to the USL lawsuit and BSDI info.
>        Aside from the lawsuit, BSDI traffic is rather light (less
>        than 5 articles?).  Most suit-related discussion spawned
>        off into alt.suit.att-bsdi and a couple other groups with
>        virtual.lawyers.

    alt.suit.att-bsdi

>
>    386:    There were several (~50) general 386 postings relating
>        to Linux, X386, other 386 Unixes (particularly SysV), PC
>        equipment, etc.

    alt.os.linux, comp.os.linux

>    General:There were about 30 postings which were markedly general to
>        BSD.  For example, the $8000 question, BSD 4.4, issues re-
>        lating to other (non-PC) BSD platforms, etc.

    Of the "issues relating to other (non-PC) BSD platforms", how many
dealt with platforms/OS's which currently have their own news groups?  I
suspect the answer will be "most".  The $8000 question was crossposted to
a *lot* of groups, and followed up in those groups as well.  There's no
reason to believe that it either originated or was answered in comp.unix.bsd
unless it's group list begins with that (it doesn't).

>    Misc:    There were 109 messages that I could not easily tell from
>        looking at them (by themselves) what their scope was.  I'd
>        say easily that at least half of them are 386BSD followups.

    Well, some of us have to use "followup" to post.  However, if they
were of indeterminate nature, perhaps they were comp.unix.questions?

>It's about time that an official call for discussion be made.
>All that's needed is a name and a charter for the new group.

And changes in all news configuration files in all non-end nodes to make sure
the distribution still reaches at least the set of people it currently reaches.
Until 386BSD, comp.unix.bsd didn't have enough traffic for a wide distribution:
not suprisingly, some backbones limit distribution based on traffic.

Look, I don't disagree that 386BSD shouldn't be in a seperate group, but I
would probably suggest a different heirarchy and a sufficient period of cross
posting to insure distribution.  Maybe comp.bsd.sources, comp.bsd.d, etc.

I don't claim that the 16 to 1 ratio of what you characterize as 386BSD vs
BSD discussion (or 20 to 1, if you include "unclassifiable followups") gives
us a monopoly on the group (but, hey, it's a pretty strong argument!), but
certainly there's no reason to go off disrupting people who are doing something
for the potential benefit of people interested in 4.4 until 4.4 is out.


                    Terry Lambert
                    [e-mail]
                    [e-mail]
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       [e-mail]
 "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------