Nan:2026-03-20-lcc-comp.unix.user-friendly
From Usenet Big-8 Management Board
From: Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.user-friendly,news.announce.newgroups,news.groups.proposals Subject: 2nd RFD: Remove comp.unix.user-friendly - LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS Followup-To: news.groups.proposals Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2026 16:32:52 EDT Message-ID: <10pkap8$rvd$2@reader2.panix.com> Archive-Name: comp.unix.user-friendly This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the unmoderated newsgroup comp.unix.user-friendly. The Big-8 Management Board plans to begin voting on this proposal after five days. Please offer any final discussion or comments before the end of this waiting period. Voting may take up to one week (seven days); a result will be posted following the end of the voting period. DISTRIBUTION: news.announce.newgroups news.groups.proposals comp.unix.misc comp.unix.user-friendly PROPONENT: Marco Moock <mmoock@big-8.org> RATIONALE: Last activity in 2009 If there is need for discussion, more general groups can be used. DISCUSSION SO FAR: For discussions relating to the 1st RFD, please see the summary in the 2nd RFD at <news:MPG.4382d871bfa8dd36989703@news.eternal-september.org>. Discussions relating to the 2nd RFD took place in news.groups.proposals and in news.groups. The discussion occurred primarily in the threads in each group for "2nd RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc", but many responses were generally applicable to all groups under consideration for removal, including the one in this RFD. Arguments, suggestions, and observations put forward in response to the 2nd RFD were: - Removing unused groups will not increase participation in related groups, nor in Usenet as a whole. [sticks, Steve Bonine, Adam H. Kerman] - Many sites won't list a group that has been rmgrouped, so group history will be inaccessible unless one knows the group existed and seeks out a provider that keeps the removed groups archived. [sticks, Steve Bonine] - There is potential for inconsistency/confusion for users if some sites keep the group available and some don't. [Steve Bonine] - There is no point to streamlining the list of newsgroups, as there are no new users coming in to Usenet who could usefully be funneled into a smaller list of groups. [Steve Bonine] - It would be more useful to overhaul the whole Big-8, keeping only the active groups and combining unused or little-used groups with them. While this will not "save" Usenet, it would bring users together and encourage active discussions with more contributors. Something like this has happened in fr.* and nobody has asked to re-create the removed newsgroups. [Julien Élie] - The topics of some groups are now obsolete. Other groups were split into sub-groups when the volume of discussion was much greater, and these could perhaps now be usefully recombined. [Dr Englebert Buxbaum] - Large-scale consolidation of groups might work if users could be consolidated along with their subscribed groups, but it's more likely that they would just lose access to their old groups once the rmgroups were issued. Also, to have much effect, it would be necessary to remove a large majority of groups. [Matija Nalis] - In a large-scale deletion, groups that are to be deleted could be left in place for a transitional period in order to redirect users to the best remaining group. [The True Melissa] - The proposals overestimate the importance of the hierarchy administration, as the active newsgroups list merely tells news server administrators that, if they create a group on a given topic, they should use the canonical name given in the list. [Adam H. Kerman] - Hierarchy administration does benefit new operators installing Usenet servers, who ask for more accurate active files. [Todd M. McComb] - Older Unix systems, possibly including those covered by the groups under discussion, may still be in use in the telephone industry or by individuals with old PCs. [David Chmelik] GROUP: comp.unix.user-friendly Discussion of UNIX user-friendliness Charter: UNIX has a reputation of being unfriendly for non-programmers - making it difficult to use by those who need not know Unix, such as the average user in the commercial business world. This group would be a forum for discussion about UNIX user-friendliness and the availability of user-friendly software for UNIX. Presently, the above is done on an ad-hoc basis on a number of groups such as comp.editors, comp.unix.questions, etc. Posts presently asking about user-friendly utilities/software for UNIX usually attract some flamage and seem out of place in these groups, because of non-obvious differences between friendliness of Unix towards programmers and unfriendliness towards non-programmers. This group would give non-programming users a forum where their type of "user-friendliness" is meant to be the norm, not the exception. The following would be considered typical for this group:- - To clarify definitions like "user-friendliness" for the relevant groups of users. - Discussion about what user friendly software (editors, utilites, etc) are available for UNIX. - Discussion/opinions about ways of making "default" UNIX user setups more user-friendly. - Announcements of new "user-friendly" software and utilities. - Discussion on how UNIX and UNIX software could be made more friendly without endangering the work methods of the Unix programmers who feel Unix *is* already friendly for them. - Discussion on what makes a particular part of UNIX or UNIX software so unfriendly/friendly, and for which subgroup of users. History: comp.unix.user-friendly is an unmoderated newsgroup which passed its vote for creation by 280:87 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on 27 Sep 1993. PROCEDURE: Those who wish to comment on this request to remove this newsgroup should subscribe to news:news.groups.proposals and participate in the relevant threads in that newsgroup. To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to news.groups.proposals. All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.proposals. If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the discussion may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken to ensure that all discussion appears in news.groups.proposals as well. For more information on the newsgroup removal process, please see https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Removing_newsgroups HISTORY OF THIS RFD: 2025-10-10: 1st RFD (remove) 2025-11-15: 2nd RFD (remove) 2026-03-20: Final RFD / Last Call for Comments -- Usenet Big-8 Management Board https://www.big-8.org/ board@big-8.org
