I could easily go along with the notion of splitting into two mailing 
lists... I personally just don't use uucp these days, but hey, knowing 
it's there helps.  Maybe some traffic will generate more, who knows? 
 Maybe the newsgroup will be where linux happens, and this list is where 
opinions will go.
That'd be a shame <g>  Seriously, I think it's realistic to allow for a 
mail or list server to go up & down on occasion, just cache the messages 
on a backup and resume the numbering, or hey just kill the numbers.  In 
our DB-driven world, I could do without ever seeing arbitrary indices on 
the surface of reality.... Most of the other lists I'm on do use a 
[listname] prefix on the subject line, but ours is the only indexed one. 
 No worries, I just ignore it, but I never use it.  The list itself, 
though, I think, MUST SURVIVE.  Jamie, how's management of it treating 
you?  I think if we knew what we [collectively] wanted, your job with it 
would be much easier!  btw, I think duality rox and that is a major 
reason two lists work for me, so eat that grain of salt if you have not 
already.
Finally, sorry for my subject line; I do not wish to imply that uucp 
exists as an opinion -- I have used it and it is real...  I suppose 
google ate uucp in a way.  Sweet dreams, fellow pengeekuins!

Linux Rocks ! wrote:

>eug.comp.os.linux is still there... I checked it the other day... I never get 
>posts to it since we started the mialing list... When we started the 
>newsgroup, there were maybe 6 people that posted to it, readership is 
>unknown...  but when we setup the mailing list,posting grew dramatically.... 
>       There is no  reason we cant use both.... just nobody seems to want to use 
>the newsgroup... sigh The mailing list has had some problems lately, and 
>subscribing seems to be next to impossible for some, and seth whines about 
>the mailing list just about every chance he gets...but it has been pretty 
>useful.
>       I setup a webpage that makes it really easy for people to subscribe to the 
>mailinglist, but aparently even that is too much trouble for some.
>
>Jamie
>

Reply via email to