RFD comp.sys.classic

-Woodzy
http://www.rtdos.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Welcome to news.groups! Thanks for bringing your idea here.

If you haven't already, you should familiarize yourself with
the process for creating a new Usenet newsgroup in the
Big-8. The process is managed by the Big-8 Management
Board, about which you can read more at
<http://www.big-8.org/>. There are links off of the home
page to various documents you may wish to read. A good one
to start with is
<http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:creation>.

You may wish to contact the Big-8 Group Mentors for
assistance with your proposal. The Mentors are a group of
experienced volunteers who coach proponents through the
newsgroup creation process. For more information, see
<http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=workgroups:mentors>.

I am a member of the Big-8 Management Board. When Board
members like me post messages in news.groups providing
feedback about a particular proposal, we are speaking for
ourselves, not speaking officially for the Board.
Sometimes, when we believe that it would be helpful, we give
our impressions of what the Board or some of its members are
thinking about an issue. However, unless our postings state
explicitly that they are an official communication of the
Board, they should not be interpreted as such.

Unfortunately, there are a number of people in news.groups
whose primary point of being here seems to be to disrupt the
process of creating new newsgroups. You should keep this in
mind when reading the discussion of your proposal here.
While I would urge you to pay attention to everyone's
feedback at least at first, you should be prepared for the
possibility that some people's participation in the
discussion may be sufficiently disruptive that ignoring them
will end up being the best option.

There are also a number of people in news.groups who
disagree strongly with the way the Board does its work, or
indeed with the fact that the Board exists at all. Some of
these people bring their disagreements with the Board into
every discussion that takes place here. You may therefore
find them attempting to side-track the discussion of your
proposal into tangents about how the process works, how the
Board was formed, whether the Board is doing a good job,
etc. While you are obviously free to engage in these
discussions if you would like, I would recommend that you
try to stay focused on your actual proposal rather than
letting yourself get drawn off onto tangents.

Because the atmosphere here in news.groups can be very hard
on proponents, the moderated newsgroup news.groups.proposals
exists as an alternative for discussing active newsgroup
proposals. An "active" proposal is one which has been
accepted by the Board for posting to
news.announce.newgroups. As an alternative to holding
extensive discussion of your proposal here, you may choose
to work with the Mentors in email to get your proposal into
good enough shape to submit it to news.announce.newgroups,
at which point further discussion of the proposal can take
place in news.groups.proposals.

Having said all that, here are some initial thoughts I have
after reading your proposal:

* The name comp.sys.classic does not seem particularly
intuitive to me. Perhaps it will be recognizable to the
hobbyists in this space, but I'm not sure it'll be
understood by others. I can't think of a better name,
though.

* If, indeed, "groups about retro PC's (and or gaming

as comp.sys.ti.explorer and comp.os.cpm.amythest)," then
what reason do we have to believe that there's enough
potential traffic to justify a new group?

* It is not obvious to me that hobbyists who use different
kinds of classic machines will want discussions of their
hardware jumbled together with discussions of other kinds of
hardware in which they have no interest. How would you
propose to make the group hospitable to people who only wish
to discuss certain kinds of classic hardware?

--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board, www.big-8.org
(Speaking for myself, not for the Board)

Anyone special in mind Jonathan, like yourself? Been flaming any
proponents and calling them kooks this week? Yes, Jonathan is famous
for his impolite treatment of anyone that does not do exactly as he
demands of them. So be careful. Humor is not allowed and you must
always respect Jonathan's authority or he will take his vote and go
home, regardless how well present is you proposal.

Yeah, usurpation of authority does seem to have an ill effect.

That translates too, "the board are a bunch of little babies who
refuse to take responsibility for their own actions".

Of course Jonathan will blame anyone but himself and the rest of the
board for the mess that has been created. Object lesson here, prior to
the interim board appointing itself permanent, there was no need for
news.groups.proposals.

Cause and effect are simple to identify. But then I am not a board
member and you'll not have to kowtow to my wishes. Telling me to fuck
off is perfectly acceptable.

Ask Jonathan how the news.servers proposal worked out. Doubtful the
board will be honest there.

--

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

"Classic" specifically refers to Mac OS 9 running under Mac OS X on a
PowerPC Macintosh computer.

Old shit under new shit, like XRN as a newsreader on any semi-modern
platform?

Sort of, but not really.

<http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/OSX_Technolo
gy_Overview/MacOSXOverview/chapter_2_section_3.html>

Was a "free" shot at Kamens, he is the "owner" of XRN.

Ever read his anal retentive views on people submitting code for XRN?

Perhaps, but that's not the only thing that word means. Apple hasn't
monopolized the word, any more than Microsoft has monopolized the term
`windows'.

Personally, I'd suggest the comp.sys.retro, or comp.sys.obsolete (of
course, just because a computer is 20 years old, that doesn't mean
it's obsolete.) .old seems too generic, .ancient might fit, but 20
years old is hardly ancient ...

--
Doug McLaren, dou...@frenzied.us
Inform all the troops that communications have completely broken down.
--Ashleigh Brilliant

Drat. Since neither you nor the rest of skirvy's flunkies had posted
anything here for several days, I was really, really *hoping* that
meant you'd all decided to abandon news.groups for good and we wouldn't
see any of you here again. (Those few days were the first time I've
enjoyed reading news.groups for over a year.) Clearly, it was too good
to be true.

--
Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> (HPCC #1104)

Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)

Dave is right. OP needs to make it clear in the name of the group that
he's refering to all retro PC's and not a particular emulation on a
Macintosh PC. Maybe comp.sys.retro or comp.sys.obsolete?

--
Kathy - help for new users at <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/>
Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/>
OE-quotefix can fix OE:
<http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/>

Can't imagine why I would have...

THEY HELD MY FEET IN THE FIRE AND MADE ME DO IT!

How about .antique?

--
Dave Sill, not speaking for the board

No it doesn't.

comp.os.mac.classic would be more appropriate for that.

Maybe comp.sys.vintage ?

Jorge.

Just FYI...not trying to start anything....

Actually, Microsoft DOES own specific rights to "Windows". They bought
the rights from IBM in the early 90's. IBM owned them because of their
pre-MS 3270 emulator software which had 9 user selectable "windows" at
the user's station - and that's why there's very likely a Sys Req or
Sys Rq ("System Request") key on your IBM-fashioned keyboard.

Martin

comp.sys.holy-shit-it-still-works

Nice one.
.

Well, try and publish an OS called "Doug's Windows" and see how far you
get.

Obviously, "classic" isn't monopolized by Apple, and I didn't say it
was.

At this point in computer OS history, however, "Classic" has a specific
meaning, and it's a Mac-contextual one.

Name me any other computer-specific context for the word "classic".

"Classic computer"? What the hell's that? It doesn't carry the meaning
that "classic car" does. When I think "classic car" I can picture a '55
Belair, or a '65 Mustang. When I think "classic computer" I sure don't
think "PC Jr" or "TRS-80".

It's a bad name for a newsgroup. But honestly, if that's what the
'beighters want to name it, I don't care. I won't be using it no matter
what it's called. It'll probably end up moderated anyway...

I agree with the poster who suggested comp.sys.vintage. Describes it
better than "classic" and doesn't have connotations of any particular
platform.

[...]

I think this group actually targets those who have a general interest
in all systems. For example, I own a wide variety of hardware running a
wider variety of operating systems, and find it troublesome to deal
with dozens of mailinglists and newsgroups.

>It's a bad name for a newsgroup. But honestly, if that's what the

Speaking of b8 and their love of moderation:
Message-ID: <ci5tq29fartvvmosj...@4ax.com>

What a surprise...

But they will all claim they don't really favor moderation amd that
they have "created" 7 groups that are not moderated. But they never
want to compare the percentage of the groups they have "created" that
are moderated to the perctenage of b8 groups that are moderated.

Three proposals are now for moderated groups and all 3 will be
created.

Really, they want to "help" the b8 and moderation is the way.

Those crazy 'beighters. Masters, every one.

What makes me sad is that Russ apparently thinks they're doing a good
job.

>comp.sys.holy-shit-it-still-works

I love that one, but I don't think it'll fly. The first one looks
more like something that'll pass n.g.p.

Excuse any errors of attribution here. I got a tad confuzzled and
couldn't get over it. What can I say? I"m old. But semi-sweet.
--

r.bc: vixen
Minnow goddess.Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

How about:

comp.history.personal-computer
--
Jim Riley

Oh my. You're a fucking hero.

--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006

"K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour,
but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably
well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering
maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion

"remember that th [sic] head toecutter has quarter million confirmed
kadaitcha man kills ok" - the land surfer

Fuckwitted alt.atheism atheist to Kadaitcha Man:
"Imagine if I were to suggest "I have a prehensile tail". You
would, naturally, ask for evidence."

Kadaitcha Man in reply to fuckwitted alt.atheism atheist:
"Not at all. I would unquestionably accept your admission to being
a monkey."

Thou one whose grossness little characters sum up. Thou impudent
strumpet.

Nah, Allbery is just happy to have an excuse not to do it himself.
The quality of their work (or the lack thereof) obviously is irrelevant
to him.

Pre-existing relevant groups already exist. For example:

amethyst CP/M systems -> comp.os.cpm
8-bit Amstrads -> comp.sys.amstrad.8bit
8-bit Sinclairs -> comp.sys.sinclair
8-bit Acorns -> comp.sys.acorn.*
PDP systems -> comp.sys.dec
Commodore 64 -> comp.sys.cbm
Amigas -> comp.sys.amiga.*
Apple II -> comp.sys.apple2.*
Ataris -> comp.sys.atari.*
MSXs -> comp.sys.msx
Orics -> comp.sys.oric
TRS80s -> comp.sys.tandy

--
JGH

Ok, I've been reading this thread and well maybe I shouldn't have. as
a newcomer I find that:

1. It sure seems like a complicated process to create a group under the
b8 hood, much more complex than it needs to be.

2. I find that the "b8 management group" is quite full of themselves
and take great pride at making things hard for anyone else but
themselves.

ie: how long does it take them to create a group for themselves?
versus how long does it take them to create a group for outside people?
The answer, I'm sure, is there.

3. I find that if I want to create a group, I'm not gonna be dealing
with these fools. b8 is not the only people capable of creating
groups. and heck for what a group is, there's even other means of
doing so while providing the same information.

These are three conclusions I've made from reading this thread alone, I
dread of what I could come up with if I read everything under this
newsgroup.

Don't get me wrong, indeed some groups should be moderated, some are
better off unmoderated, of course. i don't care about that.

One here mentionned he hated to have to handle 20 newsgroup cause he
has a whole bunch of vintage systems and doesn't want to join 20
different groups. A good statement, who does, when there is 1 group
that emalglobates them all?

comp.sys.vintage is probably the best name this group can have. Now
would the "b8 elite" get off their pedestal long enough to just create
the damn thing instead of talking about how and why and which
conditions it should be created under? or are you waiting for some
other place to create it for him?

Come on people, the idea is great, the name is great, what the hell
else is missing here?

Alot of these "pre existing groups mentionned here" are obsolete and
the whole "vintage" community could definitally benefit from an all in
one group like comp.sys.vintage. especially considering how fast the
vintage scene is changing.

Doesn't take rocket science to figure that out here. if the creation
of a group or not depends only on the knowledge of the "managers" then
they need to get themselves updated on that knowledge to realize that
comp.sys.vintage is the best thing that can happen to the vintage
scene.

Wake up and smell the coffee here people.

How many of these are 'busy'??
--
Thomas Lee - t...@psp.co.uk
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board

That is a HUGE problem for the board. No sense of humor, let alone the
absurd.

It's not really all that hard.

I'd like to think that this is very much not the case.

It takes a bit of time to create any group, some are easier then others.

If you want a big-8 group you will have to deal with the board.

So please go off to those other places and create your group.

Hopefully you'd come up with a more balanced view.

What does moderation have to do with anything?

I suspect you are right.

When there is an RFD that can be published.

Er - someone to actually write the RFD.

Feel free to do the necessary work.

That's probably a good thing as there are not many rocket scientist's
here.

The coffee is fine.

Thomas

> My vote is: NO.

You don't get a vote.

Ok, I've been reading this thread and well maybe I shouldn't have. as

1. It sure seems like a complicated process to create a group under the

2. I find that the "b8 management group" is quite full of themselves

ie: how long does it take them to create a group for themselves?

3. I find that if I want to create a group, I'm not gonna be dealing
with these fools. b8 is not the only people capable of creating

These are three conclusions I've made from reading this thread alone, I

Don't get me wrong, indeed some groups should be moderated, some are

One here mentionned he hated to have to handle 20 newsgroup cause he

comp.sys.vintage is probably the best name this group can have. Now

Come on people, the idea is great, the name is great, what the hell
else is missing here?

Alot of these "pre existing groups mentionned here" are obsolete and

Doesn't take rocket science to figure that out here. if the creation

Wake up and smell the coffee here people.

What do you find complex about the process? It boils down to:

1) Somebody has an idea for a new group.
2) The idea is discussed and an appropriate name is selected by the
proponent.
3) The board votes on the proposal.

How would you suggest simplifying that?

What do you base that claim on? When you say "b8 management group" are
you referring to members of the Board, or to everyone who posts to
news.groups?

Yes, the answer is there. News.groups.proposals took about five weeks
from first RFD to issuing the first newgroup. Non-Board groups have
ranged from three weeks to three months. Of course, when the Board isn't
the proponent, the proponent has a lot of control over how fast proposal
goes.

Absolutely. The Big 8 isn't for everyone. We don't intentionally exclude
many topics, but we realize that one size doesn't fit all.

I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

We're waiting for the proponent to submit an RFD for a vote. In other
words, the ball is not yet in the Board's court.

I agree.

I think your anger is exaggerated and misplaced. I think the Board wants
the group creation process to be fast and easy, but not so fast that
inadequately considered decisions are implemented. I also think we don't
want to take control of proposals away from their proponents, which
means that we're at the proponent's mercy. We can't vote on proposals
until the proponents ask us to.

Especially if sacrifice your first born to the self appointed net.gawd
wannabees.

Think as you will. There are those with clue who know otherwise.

No, it does not. I can format and send a control message in 5 minutes
or less. But that is not creating a group. Only news admins can create
a group.

That is not true either. Anyone can send a control message, if a news
server picks up the group there is not much the b8mb can say or do at
that point. The b8mb has a set of "keys" that some news admin do abide
by, but there are probably more that do not care the b8mb exists.

Ahem, is that not your job as you have stated may times?

What if that is the balanced view and yours is the skewed? See Bush,
G.W. for example.

The board has created, percentage wise, a very high number of
moderated groups. In comparison to the overall b8 the board is
moderation happy.

Why? Really? It is an unmoderated group. There is no need to play
juvenile nit picking games over verbiage in the charter. There is no
moderation team. The group will survive or die based solely upon
usage. The charter has little if any effect upon usage. Send the
control message and be done with it. Unless that is too easy and you
require a lot of nit picking and control freakishness.

Why? Group has a good name. Create the damn thing rather than spending
weeks wasting everyone's time over details that will be ignored before
the group is even created.

He just did, now do your work.

Yeah, heaven forbid you might have someone with clue.

--

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

Like Phillip Clipt?

Not how it has been happening. The board members threaten to vote no
unless the proponent changes the name to what the board member wants.
Or board members abuse proponent, like call him kook or a liar.

Unless the board pisses off the proponent, pisses ON proponent, forges
proponent, ignores the proponents wishes and the proponent walks away.
Then blames proponent for board actions and calls missing proponent
liar and fraud.

Then board has sycophant rewrite proposal for moderated group.

Replace Kamens with a thesaurus and the rest of the board resign.

I thought I did. I though the procedure was a majority vote with
at least 100 votes cast for creation/deletion/rename of a
newsgroup.

I admit, it's about a year since I read the docs.

> >amethyst CP/M systems -> comp.os.cpm
yes
> >8-bit Amstrads -> comp.sys.amstrad.8bit
yes
> >8-bit Sinclairs -> comp.sys.sinclair
yes
> >8-bit Acorns -> comp.sys.acorn.*
yes
> >PDP systems -> comp.sys.dec
quiet, but yes
> >Commodore 64 -> comp.sys.cbm
'medium activity'
> >Amigas -> comp.sys.amiga.*
'low activity'
> >Apple II -> comp.sys.apple2.*
one medium, six low
> >Ataris -> comp.sys.atari.*
low
> >MSXs -> comp.sys.msx
low? four posts in last two weeks
> >Orics -> comp.sys.oric
low? four posts in last two weeks
> >TRS80s -> comp.sys.tandy
low? four posts in last two weeks

That used to be the procedure. Since you read the documentation (or,
more accurately, since the documentation you read was written), it has
been changed for several reasons which have been discussed here at
great length.

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation summarises
the current procedures.

The old system has been replaced by the self-appointed b8 management
board.

Prepare to be assimilated.

Things have changed a mite over the past 4 months.

--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.

Now, you have to suck up to the "Big 8 Management Board" and they can
send the control message with only one of them voting in favor. They
especially like moderated groups, as it gives them more opportunity to
abuse proponents.

>Kathy Morgan ha escrito:

>> Dave is right. OP needs to make it clear in the name of the group that

>Maybe comp.sys.vintage ?

Which ties in nicely with uk.comp.vintage, which is a group covering
similar topics.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

[...]

Why is Thomas wrong? He said creating a group takes time, you said sending
a control message, which is not creating a group, takes 5 minutes. Your
statement doesn't disprove his statement, since you're comparing apples and
oranges.

And you must have been gone from here for a while, too. You missed a lot of
the fun.

Not anymore. A small group, calling themselves "The Big 8 Management
Board" and answerable to no one but themselves, has taken over the process
and they do whatever they feel like doing. No one but them is allowed
to vote. The only way to get a proposal approved is to stroke their egos
and make them feel important. Personally, I suggest forgetting the whole
thing and just going to alt.config to get an alt group created instead.
Big 8 groups aren't worth the trouble any longer.

--

Because Thomas' time period is weeks not minutes. But then you knew
that.

The board believes it "creates newsgroups" when in fact it sends
control messages. But then you knew that too.

(snip list)

Not just that, how many people in those groups would want to use a new
group, and how many people in those groups want to hear about other
types of computers?

B/

Microsoft has a *trademark* (well, a number of them) on Windows in the
context of computers. However, I'm typing this as I look at a GUI
called `The X Window System' (or commonly just `X Windows'.) And if I
look out the windows of my house, I see clouds and melting snow/ice.

And lots of other companies have trademarks on or including `Windows'
in other contexts.

But perhaps it wasn't the best example.

| Obviously, "classic" isn't monopolized by Apple, and I didn't say it
| was.
|
| At this point in computer OS history, however, "Classic" has a specific
| meaning, and it's a Mac-contextual one.

Only to Mac users. People have been using the term `classic' to refer
to old computers for a lot longer than MacOS X has been out.

| Name me any other computer-specific context for the word "classic".

Well, let's just put `classic computer' into google (not in quotes,
but you can put it into quotes too if you want) and see what we find.
The first page of results include :

Classic Computer Online Museum
Classic Computing Mailing List
Classic Computer Game: Star Trek
Jeff's Classic Computer Haven - Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
Uncle Roger's Classic Computers
Uncle Roger's Classic Computer Resources
Wouter's Classic Computer Collection
Classic Computer and Gaming Show (CCAG) - www.ccagshow.com
Classic Computer Rescue Squad - Volunteer List
The Computer Closet - Classic Computers and Video Games

Not a single one of these links mentions anything Mac-specific. All
of them, however, do seem to relate to the topic that this proposed
newsgroup is supposed to cover. In fact, I had to go all the way to
the sixth page of google's results to see anything specifically
related to MacOS -- and it's just a T-shirt with a bomb picture on it.
`System crash symbol from old Mac OS Classic.'

Though I do agree that *.classic is not the best choice of names (as
I've already stated), and the possibility of confusion with MacOS X's
`Classic' environment alone is enough of a reason to not use it.
Personally, I'd suggest comp.sys.retro -- it should make the purpose
of the group clear very quickly -- at least until MacOS XI comes out,
and the MacOS X environment that can be run inside of it is called
`Retro'.

| "Classic computer"? What the hell's that? It doesn't carry the meaning
| that "classic car" does. When I think "classic car" I can picture a '55
| Belair, or a '65 Mustang. When I think "classic computer" I sure don't
| think "PC Jr" or "TRS-80".

Looking at the google search results, it's quite apparent that a lot
of other people DO associate `classic computer' with computers such as
the PCJr or TRS-80s.

And even your example of `classic car' means different things to
different people. It generally means an older car, but how much
older? What condition is the car in? etc. According to the `Classic
Car Club of America', the two cars you've mentioned don't even fit
their definition for a `classic car'. (I'm not agreeing with them,
just pointing out that even what you `know' to be true isn't agreed
upon by everybody.)

| It's a bad name for a newsgroup. But honestly, if that's what the
| 'beighters want to name it, I don't care. I won't be using it no matter
| what it's called. It'll probably end up moderated anyway...

The board may be fond of creating moderated groups for groups that are
likely to deal with a lot of abuse (or maybe it's just that these are
the groups that are being proposed), but in this case if the group
were created, I don't think it would be moderated.

--
Doug McLaren, dou...@frenzied.us Intolerant people should be shot!

Since I seem to know so much, maybe you'll take my word that you're wrong.

Thomas said creating a group takes time, you said that was wrong. You then
talked about the time to send a control message, not to create a group.
Yes, creating a newsgroup is more than sending a control message, since
there are processes both before and after the message is sent. Those
processes all take time, longer than minutes, before the group is created.
You're assuming facts not in evidence about Thomas' beliefs, however, since
his statement just says "it takes a bit of time" to create a newsgroup, which
is true. We have all been reminded many times about the evil of putting words
into others' mouths, so when Thomas says A, we should assume he means A, not
B.

I don't expect this to change your mind, however. NBD.

So the fact they were proud that the software group they "created"
ONLY took 2 weeks should not be used as evidence as to the boards &
members perceived time period for the process.

Note to self: Past statements by board and board members do not count
as evidence.

<huge quantuties of self-justifying crap snipped>

> Unfortunately, there are a number of people in news.groups
> whose primary point of being here seems to be to disrupt the
> process of creating new newsgroups.

Name names. Am I one of them? Am I their leader? After all, I have a
page of my own in the Official HTML Killfile, and none of your other
teasers has one.

I think this proposal is a damn good one. I'd go for something like
comp.retro as the group's name, to include old hardware, old software
and old pizzas found behind the cabinet of punched cards, rather than
comp.sys.classic, partly because "sys" is too limiting and partly
because "classic" suggests that users have to have a high opinion of
whatever hardware and software they've used.

Maybe comp.history? comp.historical? comp.oldbies? comp.nostalgia?

Pick a name that has appropriate overtones, but make it a
sub-hierarchy of comp.*, not an overly-specialised sub-sub-hierarchy.

> You should keep this in
> mind when reading the discussion of your proposal here.

Are Jonny-boy and his fellow-clowns feeling beleagured or what?

<rant-snip>

--
PJR :-)

> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:04:19 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> transparently proposed:
>
>>In article <eolk67$o7d$2...@jik2.kamens.brookline.ma.us>, Jonathan Kamens
>><j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote:
>>
>>> * The name comp.sys.classic does not seem particularly
>>> intuitive to me. Perhaps it will be recognizable to the
>>> hobbyists in this space, but I'm not sure it'll be
>>> understood by others.
>>
>>"Classic" specifically refers to Mac OS 9 running under Mac OS X on a
>>PowerPC Macintosh computer.
>
> Old shit under new shit, like XRN as a newsreader on any semi-modern
> platform?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Xrn was highly
regarded on ancient platforms.

If, as a result of some kind of NNTP disaster, Knews and Xrn were the
only surviving newsreaders, I'd use Knews. (And if you've ever tried
to use Knews, you'll know what I mean.)

--
PJR :-)

Nonsense.

I used to own a Sinclair QL.

It's a classic, in the same sense that an early Bentley is a classic.

And it wasn't made by Apple.

There *is* no computer-specific context. Whatever meme has spread
among Apple users hasn't spread to the rest of us. "Classic" means to
most computer geeks exactly what it means to most other people - it's
a generic term, meaning "old but memorably good".

Post that opinion to Slashdot and see what happens. There was a /.
thread a few weeks ago in which people were lovingly describing their
old computers from the 1970s onwards.

That's your problem, not anybody else's.

Computer nostalgia is a big thing among geeks.

Yes, it is - but not for the reasons you've given.

If it can't be controlled by moderation or otherwise by the Big
Bosses, it might not be created at all. An uncontrolled newsgroup
might become a hotbed of dissent.

--
PJR :-)

> Dave Balderstone <dave@n_o_t_t_h_i_sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>>
>> What makes me sad is that Russ apparently thinks they're doing a good
>> job.
>
> Nah, Allbery is just happy to have an excuse not to do it himself.
> The quality of their work (or the lack thereof) obviously is irrelevant
> to him.

I'm sure you know that you're paraphrasing Russ Allbery's own words.

I'm not going to hunt for the Message-ID: everybody interested in the
issue was here at the time that Russ posted that most extraordinary of
all cop-outs.

--
PJR :-)

> 8-bit Amstrads -> comp.sys.amstrad.8bit
> 8-bit Sinclairs -> comp.sys.sinclair
> 8-bit Acorns -> comp.sys.acorn.*
> PDP systems -> comp.sys.dec
> Commodore 64 -> comp.sys.cbm
> Amigas -> comp.sys.amiga.*
> Apple II -> comp.sys.apple2.*
> Ataris -> comp.sys.atari.*
> MSXs -> comp.sys.msx
> Orics -> comp.sys.oric
> TRS80s -> comp.sys.tandy

Do you think that there might be a case for consolidating discussion?

--
PJR :-)

After reading several replies to my post, including yours, I'll concede
the point. You're right.

You're also right it's a bad name.

:-)

> Ok, I've been reading this thread and well maybe I shouldn't have.

Yeah, see, the problem is that this thread, like most in this group,
has been pounced upon by the usual group of people who have no interest
in Usenet except to disrupt it. Most of what they say is lies, and the
rest is delusional rants that can be safely ignored. Unfortunately,
while this group was supposed to serve a certain purpose, it is now
mostly useless for that or any other purpose.

> 2. I find that the "b8 management group" is quite full of themselves
> and take great pride at making things hard for anyone else but
> themselves.

You're believing the things the liars are saying.

> Don't get me wrong, indeed some groups should be moderated, some are
> better off unmoderated, of course. i don't care about that.

Who said anything about moderation?

> Come on people, the idea is great, the name is great, what the hell
> else is missing here?

An RFD.

> Alot of these "pre existing groups mentionned here" are obsolete and
> the whole "vintage" community could definitally benefit from an all in
> one group like comp.sys.vintage. especially considering how fast the
> vintage scene is changing.

Why are you arguing this? Because you somehow predict with your crystal
ball that this is going to be an objection to the group? I agree with
your point, actually. It's not clear why you think there is a problem.

--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com

>>1. It sure seems like a complicated process to create a group under the
>>b8 hood, much more complex than it needs to be.
>
> It's not really all that hard.

Provided one is willing to suck the right people's dicks.

> I'd like to think that this is very much not the case.

But in your more honest moments you can't *seriously* think so, can
you? I mean, *really*???

Groups proposed or endorsed by Tim Skirvin are fast-tracked and
rubber-stamped. Others aren't.

Why do you pretend otherwise despite the facts preserved in Google,
Thomas?

>>3. I find that if I want to create a group, I'm not gonna be dealing
>>with these fools.
>
> If you want a big-8 group you will have to deal with the board.

Untrue. Just send a control message and publicise the group - as
happens in alt.*.

Giganews and other big providers aren't going to exclude a group just
because a wannabe cabal of clueless fuckwits haven't approved of it.

>> b8 is not the only people capable of creating
>>groups. and heck for what a group is, there's even other means of
>>doing so while providing the same information.
>
> So please go off to those other places and create your group.

mystikshadows can learn about alternative ways of creating a newsgroup
in the big-8 namespace right here.

>>These are three conclusions I've made from reading this thread alone, I
>>dread of what I could come up with if I read everything under this
>>newsgroup.
>
> Hopefully you'd come up with a more balanced view.

Not after reading half a dozen of *your* prissy litle posts, Thomas.

--
PJR :-)

I agree, it's a good idea for a group and it consolidates a number of rarely
used groups yet still provides a place for users of most older gear. I
suggest comp.boat-anchors as an alternative name.

Actually, the name does need work, imo. comp.old-systems maybe. It needs to
catch attention and it needs to convey the message that... HA!
comp.as-old-as-adam

--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006

"K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour,
but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably
well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering
maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion

"remember that th [sic] head toecutter has quarter million confirmed
kadaitcha man kills ok" - the land surfer

Fuckwitted alt.atheism atheist to Kadaitcha Man:
"Imagine if I were to suggest "I have a prehensile tail". You
would, naturally, ask for evidence."

Kadaitcha Man in reply to fuckwitted alt.atheism atheist:
"Not at all. I would unquestionably accept your admission to being
a monkey."

Thou spleenwort. Thou common dog.

comp.door-stops?

What the proposal needs most of all is for the proponent to ignore
ignorant wankers like Kamens.

--
PJR :-)

*snorkle*
"delusional rants"

Yes, you keep trying to justify your abdication of responsibility and
blame everyone else. Those that can discuss and have fun at the same
time will continue, like PJR & Balderstone coming to "consensus" on
the name.

You just keep having these hilarious little hissy fits and I am sure
you will continue to be quite entertainimg, all while you attempt to
disrupt the people discussing proposals.