Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register


Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #85345

Re: Old geeks and thread drift

From Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups alt.unix.geeks, comp.os.linux.misc, alt.comp.os.windows-11
Subject Re: Old geeks and thread drift
Date 2026-04-04 21:12 +1100
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <10qqo6a$it7n$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References <10qobvo$1ut20$1@dont-email.me> <10qoqpa.116c.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> <n1k5amx6rv.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <69d02e3c@news.ausics.net>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw


On 4/04/2026 8:16 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2026-04-03 16:45, Frank Slootweg wrote:

<Snip>

>>>     I think it's not logical if Windows users, who are a part of said
>>> audience, have to move to a Unix group.
>>
>> It is an empty group, there were no messages there for years. Just a
>> convenient place by agreement, instead of creating a new group.
> 
> The sad thing is occasionally I peek into the huge threads in
> comp.os.linux.misc that I start always marking as read once
> they go too OT, and discover about 500 posts down people have
> actually started talking about something I'm interested in. Often
> I'm subscribed to a group dedicated to that topic which has been
> dead for years, but here people _are_ talking about it in a place
> I'm unlikely to find, and where I won't reply because it only
> commits me to wading through hundreds more OT posts later to find
> the responses (plus it's just contributing to the problem for other
> people).
> 
> At least it would be more organised if such talk was separated from
> Linux questions, but it'd be real nice if people actually started
> using groups relevent to the topics again. A hopeless dream, I
> know.

"A hopeless dream' .... as long as no one tries to MAKE IT happen!!

Sure, you're NOT everyone's keeper but you ARE one persons keeper!!
-- 
Daniel70

Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar


Thread

Old geeks and thread drift Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-04-03 05:31 -0700
  Re: Old geeks and thread drift c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-04-03 10:37 -0400
  Re: Old geeks and thread drift Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-04-03 14:45 +0000
    Re: Old geeks and thread drift Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2026-04-03 16:05 +0000
      Re: Old geeks and thread drift c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-04-03 14:27 -0400
        Re: Old geeks and thread drift Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-04-03 19:29 +0000
          Re: Old geeks and thread drift "Rinaldi J. Montessi" <rinaldij@alien.free> - 2026-04-03 15:07 -0500
      Re: Old geeks and thread drift Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-03 22:48 +0000
        Re: Old geeks and thread drift Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-04-04 07:14 +0200
          Re: Old geeks and thread drift Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-04 05:29 +0000
    Re: Old geeks and thread drift Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-04-03 18:10 +0000
      Re: Old geeks and thread drift Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-03 22:50 +0000
      Re: Old geeks and thread drift Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-04-04 05:55 -0700
        Re: Old geeks and thread drift Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-04-04 14:10 +0000
          Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-04-04 14:21 +0000
            Re: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift) Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> - 2026-04-04 15:57 +0000
              Re: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-04-04 14:00 -0700
                Re: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-04 22:17 +0000
                Re: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-04-05 10:42 -0700
                Wayland vs. X11 (Was: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-04-05 18:28 +0000
                Re: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-05 04:02 +0200
                Re: Top posting Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-05 10:00 +0100
                Re: Top posting Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-04-05 12:41 +0000
        Re: Old geeks and thread drift rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-04-04 18:43 +0000
    Re: Old geeks and thread drift "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-03 22:20 +0200
      Re: Old geeks and thread drift not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-04-04 07:16 +1000
        Re: Old geeks and thread drift Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-04-04 21:12 +1100
          Re: Old geeks and thread drift The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-04 13:22 +0100
    Unix-ness of Windows NT (was: Re: Old geeks and thread drift) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-04 00:18 +0100
      Re: Unix-ness of Windows NT Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-04-04 14:41 +0100
    Re: Old geeks and thread drift "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-04 18:52 +0200
      Re: Old geeks and thread drift Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-04-04 18:10 +0100
        Re: Old geeks and thread drift "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-04 22:14 +0200
      Re: Old geeks and thread drift Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-04-04 13:14 -0700
    Re: Old geeks and thread drift Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-04-05 12:26 +0000

csiph-web