Results of alt.sources renaming poll

[David C Lawrence]

In <fbs.02so64kf01 at amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> kim at uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn):
Kim> Please bear in mind that there also exist *this* group (alt.sources.d),
Kim> and alt.sources.amiga.

AcK!  A rub I'd not considered at this point.  The intent through all
of this was to leave everything else alone, just rename alt.sources.

Kim> If you want to create a new group that doesn't live under alt.sources,
Kim> well and good.  Or if you want a new sub.group under alt.sources, that's
Kim> fine too.

It really isn't a matter of _where_, subgroup or not, but a matter of
getting a clearer name.  I'm beginning to wonder about any of the
names anyway because I can envision the same number of non-source
postings but all saying, "Where I can get the source code for ...?"
The only thing that still has me leaning toward the renaming is
personal testimony from Brandon, as a moderator, and from three other
people, as users, stating that a different name would certainly cut
down on some of them.

Kim> If by chance rmgroup'ing alt.sources would leave the subgroups
Kim> intact, then I apologize for this small waste of net.bandwidth.

That is a bit of a problem.  A careful admin could pull it off without
any problem as long as he knew what was going on.  C News as shipped
will not remove the directory.  I don't know about B News as shipped,
but it was configured here to take out the directory while performing
an rmgroup.  With either, though, the directory would go away with rm
-rf, which means directories for d/ and amiga/ would go too.  The most
major problem in all of this is many sites either don't have a news
admin or have one that doesn't know/doesn't care.

Dave
-- 
 (setq mail '("tale at pawl.rpi.edu" "tale at ai.mit.edu" "tale at rpitsmts.bitnet"))