c.u.wizards vs. c.u.internals

[Paul de Bra]

In article <3370 at stl.stc.co.uk> dww at stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes:
>... Quite apart from the legal arguement (which I don't
>buy - but I'm not a lawyer), the sort of things discussed in c.u.wizards
>cover far more than just 'internals'.  In fact on my recent reading of the
>group there's very little about the internals of UNIX, if that means kernal
>stuff, and still under half if you include the file system etc.

The whole issue went right by me as well, mostly because I was on vacation.
But judging from the level of postings in c.u.wizards, the name 'wizards'
didn't seem very appropriate to me anyway.

I disagree that c.u.wizards was not discussing unix internals.
Unix is more than a kernel and a file system.
There are many questions about shell programming, awk, C, and other
Unix goodies. Given a system not running a Unix kernel (Mach for instance)
but with all Unix utilities, I would still perceive that as a Unix system.
However, take the shell (or other major utilities) away from a real Unix
system, and I would no longer perceive it as a Unix system.

c.u.wizards was and c.u.internals is about the internals of the whole
Unix system, which is not just the kernel, but also the standard utilities.

Anyway, c.u.wizards or c.u.internals is not for discussions of
c.u.wizards versus c.u.internals. Can we please go back to discussing
Unix, PLEASE???

Paul.
(debra at research.att.com)