Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

comp.lang.php Up for Discussion

Posted by michael on from the usenet-doesn't-want-to-go-on-the-cart dept.

Agelmar writes "A Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of comp.lang.php has been posted to news.announce.newgroups. This RFD begins a period of discussion on whether or not the new group is a good idea and/or appropriate. After a period of approximately 21-28 days, a Call for Votes will be posted, at which time people can vote on the creation of the new group. (There can be no voting at this time)."

16 comments

  1. This article should have no comments... by stienman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obviously if you wanted to discuss this or share your two cents you should do it in the newsgroup.

    Duh.

    -Adam

  2. Fragmentation? by knabar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am concerned that having too many newsgroups for the same topic/language will just make it harder to run a discussion and get answers to questions in a reasonable amount of time... There already are alt.php and alt.comp.lang.php and others. I understand the reason why they want to do this (alt.* groups are not carried by many news servers), but to make this new group useful, they should then get rid of alt.comp.lang.php. But hey, one can always post in all of them :-)

    1. Re:Fragmentation? by Profane+Motherfucker · · Score: 0

      Alt.* groups are also not archived by Google either, making their long-term functionality somewhat limited unless a third-party catalogues and indexes the posts -- which is not too fucking likely.

    2. Re:Fragmentation? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 0, Informative

      Are you sure? I just checked out some fucking newsgroups and there's lots of alt.fuck.whatever.* groups with articles going back several years. Is there another fucking definition of archive that I don't fucking know about?

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:Fragmentation? by Profane+Motherfucker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Fuck, you're right. It's the fucking binaries that Google doesn't do. Apparently, I'm way the fuck out of the fucking loop.

    4. Re:Fragmentation? by elemental23 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Alt.* groups are also not archived by Google

      Are you sure about that?

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    5. Re:Fragmentation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no...see my comment below.

    6. Re:Fragmentation? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 0

      FUCK! How is that flamebait? My name is Profane MuthFucka, and I *have* to swear when I post. That doesn't mean I hate you. It just means, well, FUCK! That's fucking all.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  3. comp.lang.php? by Cavio · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    php is to comp.lang as The SS Minnow is to rec.boats

    --

    Please bid on this Karmann Ghia! Please pleas

  4. heh by TheDarkRogue · · Score: 1

    heh, got myself an updated list of newsgroups for my news server yesterday and happened to notice it. Didn't think that it was worthy of a slashdot story though. Can a newsgroup be Slashdotted?

    --
    (Score:0, Interesting)
    1. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having created a few alt.* groups myself, I can reassure you that if your newserver is showing this group already, it is not configured to accept only signed big-8 control messages. CLP hasn't been created yet.

    2. Re:heh by SocialWorm · · Score: 1

      A USENET newsgroup cannot be slashdotted, although it could get a flood of posts from the people coming off of /., which could lead to problems. Theoretically, if a newserver had enough Slashdot readers using it, the server could crash or become unavailable from everyone rushing from /. to comment on the group, however, the newsgroup would still be available on other newservers.

      --
      My Blog: http://nic.dreamhost.com/
  5. So... by LadyLucky · · Score: 4, Funny
    We're talking about people who will be talking about people talking.

    Oh my.

    --
    dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
  6. You mean you need approbation to create a group ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I refreshed the list of NG carried by my ISP a few days ago and wondered how groups like:

    alt.checkmate-and-knoxy.sitting-in-a-tree.k-i-s- s- i-n-g
    alt.config.hawk-pedo-tagger.projection-onhi s-part
    alt.ithinkthisthreadneedstodie
    ...and the list goes on for a few pages

    found their way and got approved.

    So why would a "serious" group like a php one would need approbation if idiotic groups like those above propagates ?

  7. Re:You mean you need approbation to create a group by russx2 · · Score: 1

    The difference is that the alt.* tree of groups is just that - alternative, and was basically created to house this sort of crap (as well as genuine, useful groups of course).

    The comp.*, rec.* etc. hierarchies of groups are much more strict regarding the creation and moderation fo groups and hence the fuss about the group in discussion.