Removal of unix-pc groups

[Bruce D. Becker]

In article <1990Dec9.021006.1336 at axis.dsg.ti.com> mccarty at aaet.csc.ti.com (Rick McCarty) writes:
|In article <27601FD3.6C20 at tct.uucp> chip at tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
|>According to bdb at becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker):
|>> I most adamantly protest this notion - whatever
|>> the outcome of the vote, I will keep feeding
|>> unix-pc, and crossposting everything. I recommend
|>> this to everyone on general principles.
|>
|>Before anyone takes Mr. Becker seriously, remember that he also
|>"adamantly protested" the rmgroup of alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork.
|>
|>For some reason, the phrase "Consider the source" comes to mind.
|>-- 
|
|[Mr. Becker, please do not take the following as a flame - this is intended to
|be constructive in nature - i.e. I'm not sitting here spewing steam or
|anything.]
|
|[I post this because I think Mr. Becker is not the only one who needs to hear
|this.  Just whoooooo could that/they be, you ask? ;-)]
|
|I guess I do take Mr. Becker seriously in one sense.  His approach makes
|things go less smoothly than they could.
|
|Bruce's attitude is representative of the inherent problem in causing groups
|to actually go away despite rmgroup'ing.  I wish we had a purely technical
|solution to the problem, but we don't.  We must rely on cooperation.  It would
|be better if Bruce would simply "get with theprogram" and be willing to abide
|by the "wave of opinion", even if it is not consistent with the view he holds.
|
|To Bruce/others sharing his view:
|
|You must be willing to take the losses with the wins.  Argue your side the
|best you can - but STAY WITH THE ARGUMENT.  Please don't inject such "If I
|lose I won't play anymore" phrases into things.  It is detrimental to the
|argument(s) on both sides, as it takes focus off the subject at hand and moves
|the parties into "dig the heels in" mode.  We then run the risk of making
|poorer decisions, because it becomes "us vs. them" instead of "is it the right
|thing to do?".
|
|As long as your inputs are percieved as constructive in intent, they are
|valuable and deserve consideration.  Please do your best to make them so.
|I'm sure you have (and will have) many ideas that are of value to us all.
|It would be a shame to see them ignored.
|
|Believe you me, I'm Mr. Argument if you ever ran into him.  I'll fight for my
|position VERY strongly at times.  But when it's over, I know (I hope) how to
|live with it and move on.  And I (try to) never take it personally (this is a
|key lesson in life, I think!).

	Hmmmm.

	I *think* the above is drivel, but... hmmmm...

	I made the statement quoted above in order to
	focus on some real problems about this whole
	proposal. There have always been propagation
	problems with unix-pc, but no-one tried enough
	to do very much. I've pointed out the fact that
	much of the problem seems relatively easily fixed,
	but the herd is stampeding... It seems to me
	that when the dust clears that some serious
	disadvantages will show themselves, and that
	hindsight will quite possibly prove painful
	for some of the rip-snorters leading the fray
	currently. Or perhaps not, I may be merely
	over-cautious here.

	The problem seems to be that the unix-pc will
	gradually become obsolete even to many of its
	staunchest current supporters, even myself at
	some time. Already folks like Gil have caused
	a stir by announcing that he's selling off his
	machines. Although that Mike person certainly
	was obnxious in his attacks, I consider it
	important that so much stir was created - it
	appears to indicate possible wider problems
	in the unix-pc situation.

	I don't think going to hide in comp. will solve
	anything - rather it would merely provide a context
	for the stuff of the unix-pc hierarchy to be
	absorbed and dissipated. Or, again, perhaps it
	might prosper and someone could say how silly it
	was to have worried - that would be nice, but
	I'm also pretty sure that not nearly enough has
	been done with the current unix-pc groups to
	ensure their continuing success, so how confident
	can we be that this new endeavor will suddenly
	become somehow better?

	Before someone starts mumbling about negativity
	or something, I'd like to point out that the
	unix-pc phenomenon has been remarkable in some
	very important ways, perhaps uniquely. In being
	able to support at a very high and progressive
	level an obsoleted machine, a standard has been
	set which can be applied in many other contexts.
	This has such value that it ought to endure beyond
	the life of the system which it started with.
	Perhap the move to comp. has this possibility,
	but it needs to be made more explicit or its
	importance may be forgotten, which would be
	tragic...

-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker	Toronto, Ontario
a /i/	 Internet: bdb at becker.UUCP, bruce at gpu.utcs.toronto.edu
 `\o\-e	 UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb
 _< /_	 "Any closer and you'd be in the way" - ad for TV news program