Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Path: not-for-mail From: Soren A Subject: Re: Moving cygwin discussions to Usenet? (e.g., alt.os.cygwin) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:58:58 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Occasionally Sporadically Lines: 94 Message-ID: References: <200209301154 DOT g8UBssX27530 AT mailgate5 DOT cinetic DOT de> <20020930131716 DOT GD23881 AT redhat DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ny-kenton2a-572.buf.adelphia.net X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1033516738 6254 24.51.94.60 (1 Oct 2002 23:58:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet AT main DOT gmane DOT org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:58:58 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Xnews/L5 X-Archive: encrypt Eduardo Chappa wrote around 30 Sep 2002 news:Pine DOT OSF DOT 4 DOT 49 DOT 99 DOT 0209301014230 DOT 17157-100000 AT goedel3 DOT math DOT washington. edu: I have finally decided that it would seem a little _strange_ if i _didn't_ get my 2c in here since some (with overall historical memory of past posts) will recall some rather strident messages authored by me. But I have, I should note, already written privately to Eduardo (in support of his proposal, btw). > *** Philippe Bastiani (philippe DOT bastiani AT wanadoo DOT fr) wrote today: > >:) > Either actually read the mailing list via email as intended or >:read ) > it via news. >:) >:) We can read/write messages via news.gmane.org server... >:) >:) But, IMHO, a group of discussion would be very useful: for the >:) beginners, for 'repeat' questions and problems, ..., for any debat >:) concerning Cygwin! > > I agree with a proposal of this type, which should be completely > separate from this list, and where people can discuss anything related > to cygwin (even ask stupid questions, in whatever sense a question may > be stupid). I agree conditionally, that is, I *do not* agree with the wording "any debat[sic] concerning Cygwin. Not that I foresee that there is much anyone could do to direct an unmoderated USENET newsgroup in any direction or another; but to the extent that there will be a notion of a CHARTER (I hope???) for this not-yet-existant ng, and to the extent that that there will be (maybe) a core of relative "experts" with some base of familiarity with Cygwin, I would hope it will *not* include the idea that future development directions, in-depth re-engineering of the internals, etc [of Cygwin] would be discussed. IMHO the existing Cygwin Lists are the right place for that, if any place is. > I see why someone would like to keep all the mail related to cygwin in > one list, but I also see why some people would like to reduce the > number of messages getting to them (yes I know about gmane.org, but > gmane.org is not USENET, just one server, which has been slow for me > sometimes) There are several separate issues being discussed here. The question of reader (participant) convenience is separate from topicality. I use Gmane to read Cygwin now and it is the best thing to happen to me since I left AOL/CompuServe years ago ;-). Gmane does not do anything to *change* how the Cygwin List *works*, however. Except that the user now has a news interface (NNTP) onto a Mailing List (instead of having to cope with receipt of overly numerous individual email messages), and there's a great feature that email addresses are munged (encrypted) by the system to reduce spammer harvesting. That isn't going to happen with an open USENET newsgroup, btw, and all participants who might post there are going to have to deal with the full force of the predatory mutant beast that is today's Internet Spammer. So, the existence or non-existence of Gmane doesn't have much to do with whether or not a USENET newsgroup is to be created. But Chris had in this thread repeatedly written "Mailing List" where what was being discussed is a newsgroup, and I guess that he just 'miswrote' himself. If it works, the USENET cygwin ng could support the further growth of Cygwin, where "growth" is being defined as something like "numbers of individuals in a satisfied user base." Judging from his words, Chris is primarily interested in a definition of "support" or "growth" that is *not* what I just defined but is instead something more like "promoting the technical improvement and extension of Cygwin as a software system". The two notions, which on the surface are very distinct from each other, have a potential interrelatedness: when a "user base" grows, new individuals with new ideas and at least slightly) differing skillsets, will be supported to maintain involvement in using Cygwin. Involvement in using Cygwin can potentially lead to questions about how Cygwin works (or doesn't in some particular context) in detail, internally. Asking questions (of one's self) about that could lead to people deciding to put effort into coming up with solutions. THAT promotes Chris' definition of "growth of Cygwin". Please note the careful use all through the above para of "potentially" and "could" (as opposed to the alternative explicit or implicit "will," "should," or "certainly"). One further note concerns use of specific terminology (as mentioned above). I do not know of such a thing as a normal mechanism for "crossposting" between a USENET ng and a Mailing List. With extra effort it is of course theoretically possible but it isn't "normal" since most mass users employ a different client app (or at least a different mode in an application suite) to do the two different protocols (NNTP vs SMTP). To further the goal of fostering comfort on the Cygwin List, it could be explicitly written in to a Charter for the new newsgroup that "there shall be no crossposting to Cygwin Mailing Lists". Best, Soren A -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/