Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!news.smith.edu!jfieber From: jfieber@sophia.smith.edu (J Fieber) Subject: Re: <Proposal> Rename of the 386bsd groups Message-ID: <1994Jan21.214820.10404@sophia.smith.edu> Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, USA References: <ETLDNCN.94Jan21133424@paddington.ericsson.se> <CJzrsG.I6s@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 21:48:20 GMT Lines: 32 In article <CJzrsG.I6s@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, Jim Pitts <pitts@mimosa.astro.indiana.edu> wrote: >In article <ETLDNCN.94Jan21133424@paddington.ericsson.se>, > <etldncn@paddington.ericsson.se> wrote: >>Hi BSD fans, >> >>I have a suggestion. Why not rename all the comp.os.386bsd groups to >>comp.unix.pc.net2bsd or comp.unix.net2bsd? >> > >Why 'net2bsd'? Why not 'freebsd'? Putting in "pc" isn't really appropriate for the broad platform coverage goals of NetBSD. "freebsd" is inappropriate unless it is thought necessary really separate it from NetBSD. It *is* fair to call both systems net2 derived. (Then again, it is also fair to call them both 386bsd derived...) Some options: comp no arguments os/unix any opinions here? net2/net2bsd/bsdnet2 ??? Does anybody think there is a reason to establish separete groups for NetBSD and FreeBSD? I don't think so; the mailing lists work just fine for the really specific discussions. -john -- === jfieber@sophia.smith.edu ================================================ ======================================= Come up and be a kite! --K. Bush ===