From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following unmoderated newsgroup.

comp.unix.user-friendly


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.


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)
--
Usenet Big-8 Management Board
https://www.big-8.org/
board@big-8.org

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Hi all,

Last activity in 2009
If there is need for discussion, more general groups can be used.

Generally, I am in favour of removing dead newsgroups from the canonical
list of the newsgroups carried by the Big-8.
We could for instance say that when the last activity in charter dates
back to more than 10 years, the newsgroup is a candidate for a removal.
A mass-deletion like the recent one for moderated newsgroups without moderators would be more efficient than hundreds of separate RFDs
lasting several years.

In case the need arises again for such newsgroups in the future, their re-creation could naturally be considered.


Just sharing my thoughts. I totally know that some other people have a different view about that.
--
Julien |eLIE

-2-aFarpaitement-a!-a-+ (Ob|-lix)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

In Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611261351080.30481@qbbshf.puvarg.pbz>
on 11/26/06 2:17 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

I have the example of the Haskell group and 10s of thousands of
useless alt groups on my side. Poorly used or unused groups
are harmful to discussion on Usenet, contrary to the rationale
that certain proponents give (that if the narrow topic isn't
in the group name, it cannot be discussed on Usenet)
because users may be discouraged from looking for
discussion elsewhere.

"Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to discussion
on Usenet"

What led you to change your opinion since 19 years?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> wrote:

"Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to discussion
on Usenet"

What led you to change your opinion since 19 years?

In general I disagree. But I sure wish we could finally get rid of alt.hairy-douchebag.meredith-tanner after all these years. And I
think Meredith will probably agree.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote at 18:32 this Saturday (GMT):

D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> wrote:

"Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to discussion
on Usenet"

What led you to change your opinion since 19 years?

In general I disagree. But I sure wish we could finally get rid of alt.hairy-douchebag.meredith-tanner after all these years. And I
think Meredith will probably agree.
--scott

I thought alt.* newsgroups weren't controlled by the Big 8 guys.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 12:05:35 -0500, candycanearter07 wrote:

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote at 18:32 this Saturday (GMT):

D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> wrote:

"Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to discussion on Usenet"

What led you to change your opinion since 19 years?

In general I disagree. But I sure wish we could finally get rid of
alt.hairy-douchebag.meredith-tanner after all these years. And I think
Meredith will probably agree.
--scott

I thought alt.* newsgroups weren't controlled by the Big 8 guys.

They're not, that's another reason why marcos attempts is absolutely pointless.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote: >Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote at 18:32 this Saturday (GMT):

D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> wrote:

"Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to discussion
on Usenet"

What led you to change your opinion since 19 years?

In general I disagree. But I sure wish we could finally get rid of
alt.hairy-douchebag.meredith-tanner after all these years. And I
think Meredith will probably agree.

I thought alt.* newsgroups weren't controlled by the Big 8 guys.

They are not, which is why the aforementioned newgroup is still sticking around.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2