From: hugh@kink.PhaedraV.On.Ca (Hugh D. Gamble)
Newsgroups: alt.config,alt.sys.amiga.uucp,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Re: proposal alt.sys.amiga.cnews/cnews.patches
Summary: Alt group, we don't need no steenking alt group. Just say no.
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:03:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.config,alt.sys.amiga.uucp
Organization: Phaedra V

[ followups to alt.config,alt.sys.amiga.uucp People who don't get alt
will have to manually change the newsgroups line to
comp.sys.amiga.misc and/or comp.sys.amiga.datacomm ]

In article <ciaran.3jif@aldhfn.akron.oh.us>, Skip Watson writes:

> Purpose.
> 
> 	Alt.sys.amiga.cnews is for discussing the Amiga ports of cnews. It
> is also for finding help in installing, running, and maintaining cnews on
> the amiga.

It would make more sense to have a group for all amiga news s/w, not
just cnews ports. Especially considering that cnews doesn't even have
its own group for all unix and other systems, but shares one with
other news s/w (news.software.b).

We need a formal discussion on the creation of comp.sys.amiga.news.sw.

> 	Alt.sys.amiga.cnews.patches is for distributing patches and
> scripts for the amiga port of cnews.

Again, I'd like to see this cover all Amiga news s/w, not just Cnews
ports. And where should complete sources and executables be posted? If
to the "patches" group, then "patches" is a bad name, "sources" would
be better. comp.sys.amiga.sources and comp.sys.amiga.binaries is no
good until we get a moderator and those get going again (or we change
them to unmoderated).  alt.sources.amiga has limited distribution,
which also causes difficulties.

> Justification.
> 
> 	Cnews on the amiga is sufficiently different from the standard
> unix cnews to warrant a newsgroup to itself. What unix cnews does with

The core executables are the same. Some of the shell scripts have been
replaced with Amiga shell scripts or C code and some are just not
bothered with in the various ports. Some ports stray farther from the
standard Cnews distribution than others. Right now Amiga specific
posts about Cnews and other news s/w are all quite nicely carried out
in alt.sys.amiga.uucp.

> shell scripts the amiga does with c programs. Often the unix scripts and
> binaries are combine to form a single binary for the amiga. This in itself

And often people just run the unix shell scripts with an sh or ksh
compatible shell running in AmigaOS.

> 	Cnews on the amiga is growing in popularity. Its use would be more

That has not been shown. Once or twice a year there is a spurt of
posts about it in alt.sys.amiga.uucp. Right now is one of those times
because a new port is actively in beta testing. After the last one
became stable there was little discussion and people just kept happily
using it for years.

> widespread if people had access to the information needed to setup and
> run it. This newsgroup would meet that need. Also a newsgroup is more
> efficient than a mailing list.

No, it wouldn't meet that need. There would still have to be mailing
lists, as the number of requests in alt.sys.amiga.uucp have indicated.
Right now a large number of people get the Cnews and other news posts
by mailing lists because they can't recieve alt.sys.amiga.uucp as a
newsgroup. These people would still need mailing lists unless we go to
the creation of a comp group.

> Why an alt group.
> 
> 	Amiga Cnews should be discussed in the same heirarchy as its
> transport packages. At this point in time only the alt.sys.amiga heirarchy

That's a good point. alt.sys.amiga.uucp should move to comp.sys.amiga.uucp.
Most transports except uucp are already discussed in
comp.sys.amiga.datacomm.

> 	Cnews is independant of the transport package. It can work with
> nntp, uucp, or any other transport package that you'd care to come up with.
> Because of this, it should have its own group rather than be discussed in a
> group that is for a transport package.

This is true provided volume warrants it. To date the combined volume
of uucp and news postings in alt.sys.amiga.uucp has not been onerous.

> 	If you just want to cast a vote now, send your choice to
> votes@aldhfn.akron.oh.us

I'm sending a "no" vote, and I urge others to do the same.

I propose instead, that a formal discussion be started for the
creation of comp.sys.amiga.uucp (the success of which is almost a
foregone conclusion, I think) and possibly at the same time a
discussion can be started regarding the creation of a group such as
comp.sys.amiga.news.sw for the discussion of Amiga specific news s/w.
Possibly a comp.sys.amiga.news.sw.patches is also warranted, or the
scripts and code can just be posted to comp.sys.amiga.uucp.patches
along with the occasional update of uucp and related s/w that
currently comes through alt.sys.amiga.uucp.patches.

Why a comp group?

Better distribution of a group that has shown a stable existence for
years but has a problem with limited distribution causeing it to be
gatewayed to mailing lists.

Why not an alt group as well?

There's no point having both an alt group and a comp group for it, and
there's no sense of urgency for setting a group up because the
discussions already have a happy home in alt.

> Internet: ciaran@aldhfn.akron.oh.us    UUCP: ciaran@aldhfn.UUCP
> Auldhaefen Associates                  Email: auldhaefen@aldhfn.akron.oh.us

-- 
# Hugh D. Gamble  UUCP: hugh@kink.UUCP  Domain: hugh@kink.PhaedraV.On.Ca     %
# AMIX: HGAMBLE  bix: hgamble  voice: +1 416 267 6159                        %
#   "I ain't jacked my lumber baby, since my chainsaw you."                  %
#   -- The Lumberjack Song                                                   %