Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.os.linux

* In message <1v646k$3ja@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU>, Matt Welsh said:

MW> Classically, USENET is defined as the network of machines which transfer
MW> news articles via BNEWS, CNEWS, or INN software, or other
MW> compatible software (i.e., same functionality). USENET machines
MW> carry (roughly) the same set
MW> of newsgroups and transfer them over the canonical gateways and transfer
MW> mechanisms: primarily, but not limited to, the Internet
MW> (TCP/IP) and UUCP.

Bullshit!

  > From Spaf's "What is Usenet?" posted regularly to news.announce.newsuers
  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  > WHAT USENET IS NOT
  > ------------------
  >  8. Usenet is not the Internet.
  >  9. Usenet is not a UUCP network.
  > 11. Usenet is not a UNIX network.
  > 12. Usenet is not an ASCII network.
  > 13. Usenet is not software.
  >
  > WHAT USENET IS
  > --------------
  > Usenet is the set of people who exchange articles tagged with one or
  > more universally-recognized labels, called "newsgroups" (or "groups"
  > for short).

MW> Now, the only problem seems to be that FidoNet has "trouble"
MW> maintaining a newsgroup split because their news software lacks the
MW> functionality to easily create and delete newsgroups.

You seem to have (deliberately?) misunderstood. FidoNet requires that each 
echo (aka newsgroup in Usenet-speak) has a responsible person to watch out 
for system doing silly things like creating endless dupes. This is necessary 
because Fido is a personal system and there are *very* few full time paid 
operators to clean up when things go wrong. All that is required is to find 
someone willing to do the job. It's for everyone's piece of mind not just 
the fidonet.org domain.

MW> Because of this, FidoNet cannot be
MW> considered to directly be part of USENET.

FidoNet carries Usenet traffic. There is no requirement that Usenet sites 
carry the full range of newsgroups nor that they respond to newsgroup 
creation messages automatically or otherwise.

MW> The entire CFV and RFD process
MW> for creation of new groups assumes functionality used in the
MW> USENET software:

Usenet sites are not required to create newsgroups at all. A successful vote 
only means that the group creation message may be issued. All of Usenet 
could ignore it if they wished.

MW> FidoNet. I don't see USENET posters limiting articles to 20
MW> columns because
MW> CompuServ can't deal with standard 72-column articles (this
MW> is only an example, I may be wrong about this.).

Usenet (whatever that is) doesn't impose any limitations on the content of 
messages. There are software limitations around and if you go overboard your 
message may not get through. Tough.

MW> Why, then, should a USENET RFD and CFV limit
MW> the discussion for possibly creating new newsgroups because
MW> FidoNet may have trouble creating the new groups?

The discussions wouldn't be limited, they'd go as they do now. I thought it 
was just a plea not to go overboard creating a whole slew of newsgroups  for 
every little thread around. All it takes is a little consideration for the 
not so fortunate. Hey! This is almost like real life, isn't it?

MW> There is nothing wrong with FidoNet. I am merely stating
MW> that the RFD and CFV are for USENET groups, not FidoNet echoes.

They're for both. Unless you want to see all the new groups merged into one 
at the FidoNet gateways and all the traffic coming from the FidoNet corner 
of Usenet being automatically cross posted to all the groups? That would be 
the worst case effect of a bad split...

MW> Therefore I do not see the need to
MW> limit the discussion due to FidoNet's limitations.

No. But it makes sense to think about it. I know it's like having to think 
about the wheel chair bound when you fancy a nice marble staircase up to 
your offices but that's life.

MW> Ian Jackson said that we shouldn't let the FidoNet tail wag
MW> the USENET dog.

He's a pratt then. The RFD is to highlight the issues involved and select a 
list of groups to be voted on. The CFV is to vote on those groups. Any 
groups that get the required level of votes can be created. Whether or not 
they are used, who they are used by, what they are used for, whether they 
are even carried are down to individuals. There is nothing you can do if 
they don't play ball. This is why the creation rules are biased against 
change. There needs to be momentum behind it. This needs to be understood 
early in the process to make it a success.

MW> In other words, FidoNet should look at more ways
MW> to follow a possible split of comp.os.linux with new echoes,
MW> instead of attempting to restrict it.

Congratulations! You've just volunteered to look after at least one new 
FidoNet echo.

Seriously though, if enough people want the new groups (whatever they are) 
they will be created. If not they won't. Nothing more, nothing less.

Personally I _would_ like to see an SLS group. SLS isn't Linux. Not everyone 
uses it. Not everyone uses it for more than just an initial install. It is, 
at the end of the day, a semi-commercial Linux. For some reason it seems 
to generate far more traffic than that for other distributions and the 
majority of that traffic is only relevent to other SLS users.

                                Mike