From: magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson)
Subject: What about alt.os.multics? (was: alt.fan.multics, any interest in a Multics (OS) newsgroup?)
Followup-To: alt.config,alt.folklore.computers
Summary: A better name?
Keywords: group creation alt
Organization: Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Sweden
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:56:05 GMT

In article <z-t2_za@rpi.edu> multics@lachesis.acm.rpi.edu (Multics) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.145029.5468@pollux.lu.se> magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) writes:
>...
>>The name alt.fan.multics is *bad*, though, because all the other
>>alt.fan.* groups are about people in show biz; it would lead the
>>newbies to believe that multics was a pop group :-).
>
>Actually the item that prompted me to suggest this was the new group
>alt.fan.mts (Michigan Terminal System) and os still used here at RPI.

Oh, I didn't know that - thanks for telling me. That newsgroup looks
pretty interesting... 

But this points out a drawback with putting a multics groups in the
alt.fan hierarchy: I had no idea whatsoever that this group was about
an operating system! The alt.fan hierarchy is one of the worst parts
of alt in terms of the number of spurious and non-serious groups, and
any new group runs a big risk of drowning in the noise. 

BTW; I retract my earlier statement about all alt.fan groups being
about people in show biz since that's simply not true; alt.fan.lemurs,
alt.fan.bruce-becker and alt.fan.mts being good counterexamples.

But I do think that a multics group would deserve a more
"serious-sounding" name than alt.fan.multics; if nothing else, it
would probably ensure a better propagation. (If Jay Maynard is reading
this, I hope he notices that I'm not working to preserve the so-called
"alt sewer" at all costs, but rather to impose some order on it).

>>May I suggest alt.os.multics, or possibly
>>alt.folklore.computers.multics instead? 
>
>I like alt.os.multics.  I did consider something in the more formal area
>such as comp.os.multics or rec.os.multics, but I'm not sure if there is
>enough interest for those groups.  If enough people think I should work
>toward one of those, instead of an alt group, I'll hunt up the rules
>and see about getting the procedures done to try for a rec or comp group.

"Rec.os.multics"? Now, *that* would be something new! Normally, people
complain about everybody trying to put "recreational" or "chat" groups
in the comp hierarchy (as illustrated by the recent
comp.society.folklore flamewar), but I've never heard of anybody
wanting to put a group about an operating system in the rec hierarchy. :-)

Seriously speaking, I can't really see any reason why the multics
newsgroup shouldn't be called comp.os.multics.

*But* it takes several months and a lot of work to create a group in
the mainstream, *and* I'm not sure there'd be enough interest for the
group (there must be at least 100 people in favour of the group to
create it, for example).

My suggestion is that you create alt.os.multics (which name I don't
think anybody could have anything to object). We'll then watch this
group for a few months, and if it draws a lot of interest, we can
issue a formal RFD for the creation of comp.os.multics.

(As everybody can see, I'm *not* opposed to the idea of "promoting"
groups out of alt in general, just in certain specific cases.)

              Magnus Olsson                | \e+      /_
    Department of Theoretical Physics      |  \  Z   / q
        University of Lund, Sweden         |   >----<           
 magnus@thep.lu.se, thepmo@seldc52.bitnet  |  /      \===== g
PGP key available via finger or on request | /e-      \q


Xref: sparky alt.config:8124 alt.folklore.computers:18281