🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4365@vidiot.UUCP> brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes:
>In article <3925@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
><This goes as well for a suggestion that you made earlier "they
><should just make 'em all rec groups".  A truly sill idea.
><What do you think that the response will be to that?  UW stops
><carrying rec...

>I said that?  Obviously sources groups don't belong as rec groups.

Yeah, you said that last go-round.

>But, why not make alt groups that are rec in nature, rec groups?

Of course, why not.  Just needs a vote ;-)  Which is as it should be.
It does happen.

>Maybe my histor of the alt groups has a few holes in it.  I understand that the
>alt groups
>came about because net readers couldn't get certain groups created, so a
>bunch of them got together and started alt groups as a way around the problem.

Yes, that was one of the reasons - certain groups were thought to be so
far outside of legality, or taste, that admins would refuse to create
them vote or not.  The other reason is that there are a
substantial amount of people who believe that there shouldn't be any
kind of control, and are politically opposed to *any* procedure no matter
how easy, or how permissive it is.

>Many sites decided not to carry these "groups".  This kind-of made them the
>black sheep of the family.  The black sheep title has still hung around to
>this day.  This makes it tough to get the alt groups everywhere.

You wouldn't *want* the vast majority.

>How about my suggestion to have a PostScript sources group?  Oh, I can hear
>the screams and moans now...not another newsgroup.  But what could be more
>natural than to have a PostScript sources group within the PostScript
>newsgroups.

It's not that bad idea - that's what comp.sources.* is for.  However,
the current convention is that there's no language differentiation in
the groups, only O/S (or "refereed review", versus "review", versus "packaging
standards only").  However, since PostScript is, in one sense, a different environment
altogether from UNIX, a comp.sources.postscript might fly - especially if
moderated.  I suspect, tho, the arguments would be about PostScript being a
graphics format (and hence should be under alt.binaries), or there being
insufficient demand (for PS programs versus, say, pornos) that it would
be a long slog.

I dunno.  What do other people think?  If we decide that one's appropriate
and that it has a reasonable chance at flying, I'm amenible to running
the vote.

>BTW.  Did you ever receive my e-mail about enhancments to the psxlate man
>page?  I never heard back from you.

Yes.  But I'm going to implement something different to solve the problem.
This isn't a documentation problem.  I did send something to you.  Musta
gotten lost somehow.