Why don't we just gateway u-w to unix.programmer?

[Kent Paul Dolan]

brnstnd at kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> gl8f at astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>> brnstnd at kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>> >A very simple solution to this entire issue: Gateway the unix-wizards
>> >mailing list to comp.unix.programmer rather than to comp.unix.internals.
>> Why?
>> Do wizards talk only about programming? No.
>> Do wizards talk only about internals? No.
>
>That's irrelevant. As you would be able to verify if you archived (or
>read) these groups, almost all of the threads in unix-wizards are very
>accurately described by ``UNIX programming discussions.'' Hence
>unix-wizards is most appropriately gatewayed into comp.unix.programmer.
>This also solves the possible problem of UNIX source licenses keeping
>people away from unix-wizards just because they can't talk about UNIX
>internals.

Won't work.  You may have the mapping right one way (though I suspect not),
but the mapping from "things accurately described as Unix programming
discussions" to "threads interesting to wizards" fails big time.  The stuff
interesting to wizards gets drowned by stuff interesting to me and to other
applications programmers.

Kent, the man from xanth.
<xanthian at Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian at well.sf.ca.us>