HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: yet another BSD newsgroup proposal (:-(
Date: 21 Jul 1992 06:45:50 GMT
Organization: Dis-
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Summary: Bill has a reason for that

In article <1992Jul20.184120.13359@resonex.com> michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) writes:
>What he said.  For Bill Jolitz to claim that 386BSD is not UNIX is
>ludicrous.  In the most technical, legal sense, he might be correct.
>The "harsh" reality, however, is that people view BSD as UNIX, and
>hence view 386BSD as UNIX.
>
>I deeply appreciate the work that has gone into 386BSD.  However, this
>constant need to distance themselves from everyone else, with the
>animosity and picking of nits, is just too much.  People who take
>a confrontational stance are likely to be confronted.

	Given that BSDI has just been sued by USL for (among other things)
allegedly infringing on the UNIX copyright, can you see why a (much poorer)
couple might be a mite bit worried about the consequenses of claiming that
something is UNIX?

	Bill is right, in the realm he's really referring to.  386BSD is
not AT&T (USL) licensed.  Therefor, in the real world, calling it UNIX
is somewhat bad.

	This does not mean, necessarily, that it's a bad idea to continue
to call "unix-alike" systems comp.unix.* .  What it does mean is that we
have to come to some understanding and consensus as to wether we want to
be accurate to how it behaves (everything from Linux to USL5.4 acts UNIX
in most ways) or in real-world naming requirements (in which case we
have to drop everything not properly licensed)

	IMHO, following the standard Usenet naming tradition of making
functional sense, we ought to use comp.unix for everything.  USL is
unlikely to sue "usenet", and it makes more sense (especially to new
users... or do you want endless "but why isn't it unix?" questions?).


-george william herbert
gwh@soda.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.com  herbert@uchu.isu92.ac.jp until 28 aug
++  copyright 1992 george william herbert.       All rights except usenet   ++
++ transmission/use and inclusion in followup/reply articles/mail reserved. ++
From: gaijin@ale.Japan.Sun.COM (John Little - Nihon Sun Repair Depot)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Ideas on how to split rec.aviation
Summary: "soaring" OR "non-powered", which club to join??
Keywords: soaring, non-powered, unpowered, lighter-than-air
Date: 28 Jul 92 05:10:10 GMT
Organization: Nihon Sun Microsystems - Atsugi Technical Centre - JAPAN.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ale.japan.sun.com

In article <l6uhmhINNp00@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> jfarrell@jf.Eng.Sun.COM \
(Jerry Farrell) writes:
%  
%  1)  I'm uncomfortable with calling hang-gliding & ballooning "soaring".
%      I wonder how much traffic these two will generate.  Depending on the
%      answer, I think either they should be left to r.a.misc, or "soaring"
%      should be changed to something broader.  I don't have any problem
%      with a "powered" / "unpowered" dichotomy.
%  

   Well, we've seen  something of  a resurgence in  "soaring" or  "glider"
   postings to the existing  group over the past  few weeks, and now  that
   summer is  with us  (in  the Northern  hemisphere, anyway)  we're  also
   seeing a marked  increase in the  number of postings  to the  Hang/Para
   mailing list.

   I don't think that there's any  doubt about there being enough  traffic
   for a separate group even now, and I'm sure that a separate forum  will
   bring forth more  participants who  currently feel that  rec.av is  too
   "mainstream" for their interests.

   On the  other hand,  while I  support  the split  of rec.av  into  more
   specialised groups, I think that r.a.soaring is a little too  specific.
   The more recently proposed  "unpowered" or "non-powered"  seem to be  a
   better catch-all for the non-motorised  side of aviation (although  not
   nearly as  sexy  as  "soaring" IMHO  :-)  ).  Do we  actually  want  to
   discriminate between  "thermaling"  type soaring  and  lighter-than-air
   craft?

   How do the glider and sailplane  folks feel about being penned in  with
   the Hang/Para/Balooning folks?

   Finally, thanks  to Geoff  and Robert  for their  work on  the  initial
   proposal, even though they did miss out  "rec.aviation.mile.high.club".
     :^>    :^>

-- 
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  | John Little  - gaijin@Japan.Sun.COM  - Sun Microsystems. Atsugi, Japan | 
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.unix.* reorganization
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:22:35 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to bazyar@teal.csn.org (Jawaid Bazyar):
> [c.u.ibm.pc.{16,32}bit, since reverted to c.u.ibm-pc-arch.{16,32}bit]
>
>  And it also allows for comp.unix.apple2gs.

Not at all -- unless, that is, there are multiple UNIXen for the IIgs,
and there is significant discussion of hardware compatibility issues
and inter-UNIX comparisons; in which case, you'd want c.u.apple2gs-arch.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "Do Rush place weird subliminal backmasked messages in their songs to
 compel unwilling geeks to commit evil .sig atrocities?"  -- Dean Engelhardt
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: RFD: sci.techxfer
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:06:50 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

I have received some interesting comments concerning this proposed
group via e-mail. I'd like to request that all comments also be
posted on news.groups so that others may participate in the
discussion. E-mail is OK, but this isn't meant to be a private
discussion! Thanks..

Richard Murphy
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: RFD: sci.techxfer
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:40:39 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Adam Richter wrote that he thought the topic of technology transfer
was too ill-defined to be meaningful and stated there was no discussion
of this topic now on the net....

Well, there are presently 3 active mailing lists that cover various
aspects of technology transfer, serving 806 subscribers. This doesn't
include redistributions. I believe the reason there is no discussion
of technology transfer within netnews is simply because there is no
place to do it! Comp.patents and misc.int-property are only one aspect
of technology commercialization.

While there are many approaches to assisting technology transfer, which
may lead to the idea that it is "ill-defined", many millions of dollars
of taxes are spent each year on these processes. Anyone who works in the
field does not not consider the topic to be "ill-defined." 

Richard Murphy
From: jfarrell@jf.Eng.Sun.COM (Jerry Farrell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Ideas on how to split rec.aviation
Date: 23 Jul 1992 23:54:57 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: jf
Summary: support few groups; quibble on details

I join Tony Bible in generally agreeing with Robert Dorsett's
winnowing of the proposed groups.  Also like Tony, I have a few
minor disagreements:

1)  I'm uncomfortable with calling hang-gliding & ballooning "soaring".
    I wonder how much traffic these two will generate.  Depending on the
    answer, I think either they should be left to r.a.misc, or "soaring"
    should be changed to something broader.  I don't have any problem
    with a "powered" / "unpowered" dichotomy.

2)  I prefer to keep "piloting", or something similar, to cover the
    topics that bear equally on powered/unpowered flying.  For instance,
    I would have been hard put to decide where to post my recent query
    on what's stalled in a spin, if I had to decide between powered/
    unpowered/soaring.  As an exclusive glider-guider, I would probably
    have gravitated to the latter, but the responses seemed to come
    mainly from the powered community (or folks who do both).

3)  R.a.answers needs a better charter -- already one post has been
    confused by calling it maintenance.  This is the FAQ, netiquette,
    Can I Log PIC, right?

4)  I disagree with r.a.maintenance.  I think these should fall under
    powered / unpowered, as appropriate.

So my list looks like

    rec.aviation.answers
                 homebuilts
                 misc
                 piloting
                 powered
                 powered.ifr
                 social
                 unpowered

Of these, I would expect to read piloting and unpowered pretty regularly,
answers, misc & social as I found time, homebuilts & powered rarely,
and powered.ifr not at all.

I don't quite understand how sci.aeronautics.airliners is supposed to work.
It gets an independent RFD/CFV, and assuming it passes, we all tell anyone
who wants to discuss A320 controls to take it over there?
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: mick@maxine.wpi.edu (Ravi Narayan)
Subject: Re: rec.moto.harley
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:13:07 GMT

Somewhere, Sometime, Thus Spake paulb@harley.tti.com (Paul Blumstein):
:- In article <1992Jul24.153814.171@wpi.WPI.EDU> mick@maxine.wpi.edu (Ravi Narayan) writes:
:- +Somewhere, Sometime, Thus Spake paulb@harley.tti.com (Paul Blumstein):
:- +:- +
:- +:- Voting down rec.moto.hd will not make anyone come back.  
:- +:- Voting down rec.moto will just keep the bulk of the HD riders off of
:- +:-  usenet.  If that is your goal, vote NO.
:- +
:- +	please go read my previous posts.
:- 
:- Just to keep the record straight, it was not I that made those quotes.
:- However, I do agree with the poster 100% (at least).

	i thought it was your post. i am sorry for the attribution if it
	wasnt.

:- I have read your previous posts.  Could you extract/summarize the points
:- from them that are relevant to these quotes?  

	1. i do not advocate voting down r.m.h. (i am not planning to
	   vote no - i am still looking for someone who will tell me how
	   h-d motorcycling is different from the rest so maybe i can
	   vote yes).
	2. i do not know if anyone went away - so i certainly do not
  	   know if i want anyone to come back.
	3. what i do want however is for h-d riders to use rec.moto as a
	   forum for discussion since i feel they are valued by quite a
	   few people who read rec.moto, and also that r.m would be a
	   sufficient forum for discussion.

	i hope that makes sense (as a summary).

	happy riding,

	- ravi

	ps: about the helmet and showers... you mean you actually know a
	biker who takes showers?


'''---```---^^^^^^-----#-----~~~~~----'''------~~~~-----````~~~---------=\ /=
.sig (n): a piece of mail with a fool at one  :  Ravi Narayan, CS, WPI   (0)
          end and flames at the other. (C).   :  DoD# tan90-SuzukiGS500E  H
   o     _          _           _           _ :         _           _     H
 _/\_> =| |========| |=========| |=========| |=========| |=========| |=======
0,> /0,=|w|,,=====,|,|.,===,,==| |,,===.,==|.|..======w| |..,,.====| |====,,=
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dpalace@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dick Palace)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.models.scale
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:36:49 GMT


I'm a scale modeler, the proposed charter looks good to me .

Go for it.

Dick
--
Dick Palace         Goddard Space Flight Center      (301) 286-9464

dpalace@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov
Xref: sparky news.groups:16055 comp.os.coherent:3218
From: dawson@willard.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.os.coherent
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.unix.* reorganization
Date: 24 Jul 92 11:19:37 GMT
Organization: Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814

bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing) writes:

> In article <wH6BoB6w165w@willard.UUCP> dawson@willard.UUCP writes:
> |peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> |
> |> 
> |> >comp.unix[+].* should
> |> >go away, to be replaced by comp.os.unix[+].* (or perhaps comp.os.UNIX[+]T
> |> >which would *ONLY* be used for "true" USL licensed UNIX[+] versions.
> |> 
> |> No, I think that keeping the net aware of how many alternatives there are
> |> to True Blue AT&T code is important, and besides who are they going to sue
> |> Usenet?
> |
> |How 'bout Andy Tannenbaum?  Linus Torvalds?  Princeton-Hall?  Mark Williams 
> 
> Hmmm?  How are they going to one of these people because Usenet called their
> products "Unix"?  These companies are not Usenet.  You can't sue someone for
> something they had no part in.

Well, the "and besides...Usenet" phrase is obviously totally out of place in
a discussion about the structural re-organization of the Usenet.  AT&T have
made no moves to sue (or otherwise involve in legal action) any portion of
the Usenet.

However, the consequences of their actions against several BSDI activists
cannot be ignored.  Any business with the slightest risk of incurring lawsuit
should certainly be aware of possible ramifications of their activities.
And, IMHO, I highly suspicious that no business in any reasonable simulation
of sanity would for a minute look to the Usenet for legal advice!

To address your question "How are they goint to [sue] one of.." well, the
process of law is probably well outside the charter for this newsgroup,
but I believe the initial activities involve hiring a lawyer and filing
certain briefs.  Nowhere in that process is there any restrictions on the
claims.  It doesn't take much looking to see just how badly skewed our
justice system really is.  There have been some absolutely ludicrous rulings.
What makes you thing that the Usenet, or any part of it, is immune?

As to your assertion that "these companies are not Usenet.  You can't sue
someone for something they had no part in."  That is for the courts to
decide.  You can sue anyone for anything, almost.  E.g., if I allege that
you have conspired to violate copyright and trademark laws, and if I show
some shreds of evidence, many courts will consider that sufficient to allow
the suit to be entered.  It would then be my responsibility to make those
accusations stick in court, but hey, that's the process.  Or perhaps you're
not familiar with the US judicial process?  (Please don't whine that Usenet
is int'l; the only reason I include the US in my comments is that you and
I are apparently both in the US <right now>.)

> 
> ben
> --
> 
> Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.


-- 
dawson@willard.UUCP (Willard Dawson)
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814
From: romain@salt.eng.pyramid.com (Romain Kang)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: An aside on INET...
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:32:50 GMT
Reply-To: romain@pyramid.com
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp, San Jose, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: salt.eng.pyramid.com

Today, it doesn't appear necessary to spend as much time pumping hands
and sending e-mail as it was in earlier Usenet days.  As UUNET goes,
so goes most of Usenet; even without UUNET buying into the scheme,
widespread Internet connections make "backbone" participation optional.

Having said that, I think it would be more interesting to implement
the hypothetical UUCP distribution correctly (perhaps with distributed
automatic moderation that ensures proper Distribution: headers) than
to repeat mistakes of the current INET implementation.  Of course,
this would also demonstrate the limitations of distributions in
today's Usenet.

(I should be clear as possible when I speak of INET: I mean groups which
belong to the INET distribution but have names within the primary
hierarchies.  This is distinct from the old fa.* groups in 1985 and
earlier, which George William Herbert calls integral to the historical
Usenet, if I understand him correctly.)
--
"Eggheads unite!  You have nothing to lose but your yolks!" -Adlai Stevenson
From: jet@win30.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: OSF/1 newsgroup?
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:42:39 GMT
	<1992Jul23.140050.6513@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <2A6FFE82.784F@tct.com>
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames

"Chip" == Chip Salzenberg <chip@tct.com> writes:

Chip> According to gibian@talent.ljo.dec.com (Marc S. Gibian):
Chip> Okay, except I think it still belongs in "comp.unix":
Chip> "c.u.osf.osf1".

I agree with this method, it makes the most sense to me...

--
J. Eric Townsend --  jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311
'91 CB750, DoD# 0378
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: An aside on INET...
From: kilroy@acme.gen.nz (earthbound misfit, I)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 09:46:48 GMT
Organization: ACME BBS - Public Access Usenet, Palmerston North, New Zealand

In article <wTcDoB36w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

> If the INET groups aren't going to move to their own hierarchy, then I
> suggest we start a JNET distribution.  After all, if some bunch of random
> people with Internet connectivity can create apparently mainstream groups
> without bothering with a vote, why shouldn't those of us out here in
> UUCP-land be able to do the same?
> 
> If anyone's interested in taking up this idea, I suggest that we begin by
> discussing the newsgroups which will be in the JNET distribution.  Here's my
> initial list:
> 
> rec.sex
> rec.sex.bondage
> rec.music.rush
> comp.sys.newton
> sci.sceptic
> rec.drugs
> talk.politics.libertarian
> 
> Of course, it will be a terrible shame if the control messages to create the
> groups accidentally leak out onto the net at large.

Yes, terrible. It sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea. The names sound
fine to me.

						- k
						(omigod. I just agreed with
						 mathew)
-- 
Craig Harding            kilroy@acme.gen.nz             ACME BBS +64 63 3551342
"Jub'f Xvob?"
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.unix.* reorganization
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 08:33:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.072251.14899@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz> ecmtwhk@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Thomas Koenig) writes:
>So, what about comp.os.unix.* ?

Better yet, how about:

        comp.os.unix.*                             Real AT&T Licensed OS groups
        comp.os.unix-based-but-not-att-source.*    NET2 derivatives, etc.
        comp.os.unix-look-alike-but-no-att-intellectual-propery.*
                                                   Linux, Coherent, ???

>(No, I'm not serious)

I didn't think so...  ;-)

-- 
Michael Bryan        michael@resonex.com                     |     ,_,
"Pretenders I meet are making a trail along the way.         |    /oo \
They say that they know how to show me a path to guide my    |    <>__|
way to truth..." --- David York, "The Quiet of a Candle"     |    |  U|
From: n8846069@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Barry)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.kings-x (retraction)
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:32:54 GMT

pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (D) writes:

>For purposes of sparing the net from the obvious, I'm retracting my RFD on  
>rec.music.kings-x for the time being.  Defeat of the group was relatively  
>certain and a vote on the group would have been useless.

>For supporters of the group, fear not.  A King's X mailing list does exist  
>and is put out by Barry B. (I forget the e-mail address; Barry, could you  
>post?) and I'll likely put in a new group proposal to alt.config.

Anyone who wants to subscribe can send email to me at:
n8846069@henson.cc.wwu.edu

-BarryB
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.sysv386
From: john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.unix.* reorganization
Organization: Private system -- Orlando, FL
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 16:17:57 GMT

In article <2A6FFB8D.7962@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>There's a thought.  Does anyone else have words of support or
>criticism for "c.u.dos-with-unix"?

It looks like it means running DOS with UNIX on the same machine on
different disk partitions.

I don't think any of the proposed names will be immune to people who
don't bother looking at the newsgroups file.  What's needed is
something that doesn't have MS-DOS in the newsgroup name.  Would using
actual product names divide things too much?  E.g.,
comp.unix.emulators.merge, comp.unix.emulators.vpix,
comp.unix.emulators.soft-pc.  I would venture than none of them really
have enough in common (aside from the mere fact of being "emulators")
to be lumped into the same newsgroup.
-- 
John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP  (jwt!john@peora.sdc.ccur.com)
From: chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.forsale.computers reorganization
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:09:29 GMT
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX

In article <1992Jul28.182453.4243@uunet.uu.net>
	mmm@qedqcd.rye.ny.us (Mike Miskulin) writes:
>I am formally proposing the split of misc.forsale.computers into a new
>hierarchy.

Where does a `Telebit TrailBlazer for sale' message go?
misc.forsale.computers.hardware?  Ooopps...it's the internal plug-in
card.  Maybe misc.forsale.computers.hardware.ibm?

How about my Cannon page scanner?  That has a peecee plug in card.
Does that go in misc.forsale.computers.hardware.ibm?  But it's a SCSI
device, maybe the buyer would like to throw out the card and use it
on a Sun.

How about the SCSI hard disk I pulled from a Mac (hardware or
hardware.mac).  How about a copy of SCO XENIX for PC/AT (software or
software.ibm).

Is the horse dead yet?

While we are at it, any misc.forsale reorg which fails to comprehend
the growing number of `wanted' and discussion messages is doomed to
failure.  Personally, I think we should look at consolidating
`misc.forsale' and `misc.wanted' into `misc.market' -- and we should
stop creating market subgroups all over the place.  There is a reason
why forsale/wanted were created in misc and not comp.

-- 
Chip Rosenthal  512-482-8260 | Let the wayward children play.  Let the wicked
Unicom Systems Development   | have their day.  Let the chips fall where they
<chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM>   | may.  I'm going to Disneyland.  -Timbuk 3
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.railroad,sci.environment,rec.bicycles,misc.consumers
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: RFD: rec.transit
Organization: Echo Beach
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 09:14:23 GMT

Discussion about transit now takes place in a number of different newsgroups.

In rec.railroad, the emphasis is on commuter rail and past and present
streetcar (tramcar) systems. In sci.environment, there are lots of flame
wars between advocates of cars and their opponents. In rec.bicycles,
people express their frustration with local transit companies that won't
carry their bikes and with aggressive transit drivers who give bicyclists
a hard time. And misc.consumers would seem like a reasonable place for
users of transit services to complain, but I haven't seen any transit-
related messages there. As well, geographical newsgroups (like can.general
and tor.general) also have discussions about local transit companies.
 
Would a rec.transit group make any sense? People talk about transit a lot,
at least in communities where there's an adequate transit system.
 
I can't run a vote from here, but I'd encourage discussion about whether
we need a rec.transit. Perhaps someone could volunteer as vote-taker if
there's significant enthusiasm for this suggestion.


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80