From: ketil@spurv.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: NJ/SML
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of computer science at the University of Bergen, Norway
	<KETIL.92Sep29143043@spurv.ii.uib.no>
	<1992Sep29.203910.2837@odin.diku.dk> <3748@eastman.UUCP>
	<LILJEBER.92Sep30221336@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:45:32

In article <LILJEBER.92Sep30221336@klaava.Helsinki.FI> liljeber@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Mika Liljeberg) writes:

   Reasons for:

   o	Splitting c.o.l to several subgroups would save some
	   people the bother of learning to use a modern threading
	   newsreader.

I hardly think this is a very accurate account...

   o	A lot of people are following this group via mail digests.

   o	A lot of people are getting c.o.l through Fido-net. I'm told

OK, if this would mean leaving out a significant part of the linux
community, I agree with you.

   o	A lot of people _can_ use threading newsreaders and a great
	   many of them actually _like_ having it all in a single group
	   (I'm one of these people).

But you're not egotistical, like me, right?  And don't tell me I can't
use a threading newsreader, because I do.  But when it takes my
newsreader minutes to download the stuff from my nntp host, and then
even longer to sort it all out, I do get slightly annoyed.  And yes,
maybe it is a sh*tty server, a sh*tty network, a sh*tty computer, but
I can't change that.  And a lot of people have worse hardware than me.

And I, and I suspect many with me, only have interest in a few of the
topics in the group.

And I don't have the time to browse through several hundred articles
every day (maybe slightly exaggerated?  But there's a lot.)

And everybody knows kill files don't work. :-) (Well, not well enough, anyway)

   o	Several prominent people in this newsgroup (including Linus
	   himself) have rather clearly stated that they prefer c.o.l
	   they way it is. We should listen to these people, because they

I have a feeling you'd like to include yourself here? :-)  (Sorry
about that)

	   (Anyone who considers him/herself a prominent person in c.o.l
	   and disagrees with the views expressed is invited to comment :-)

For the record, I'm not a 'prominent person' (Who defines this?  You?)
Hell, I don't even run linux anywhere...

   I can see the attraction of splitting c.o.l into neatly cathegorized
   subgroups, but I also like to think that I'm not so egoistic as to

(by doing it the way you don't prefer, anyway)

   leave a bunch of people out in the cold, because of personal convenience.

Yeah, it's just me.  Me and perhaps a few more....but I agree with you
there. 

   If you wish to reduce the traffic in c.o.l, please direct all flames and
   talk about splitting c.o.l to dev.null. 

Yeah right, you've gotten your say, end of discussion.

   I hereby propose that the reasons for _not_ splitting c.o.l be included
   in the FAQ, so that newbies would have _some_ idea what they are talking
   about, before they start whining about splitting comp.os.linux. This is
   only halfway a joke.

If there's any other place to take this discussion, I'd be happy to.
How about comp.os.linux.split :-) ?

BTW, why is it so difficult to get new groups into fidonet?  How many
are affected?  Email, please.
--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =