On 7/17/20 2:08 PM, Michael Kjörling wrote:
> I agree. For topicality, I think it's reasonable to draw the line 
> somewhere

Agree.

I use the following questions as a litmus test, requiring both to be true.

1)  Does it fall into the broad category of Unix or Unix like operating 
systems?

2)  Is it old ~> historic?

I use the "historic car" definition as a guideline for how old "old" is. 
  Specifically 25 years old, or older.

If both of those answers are "yes", then I figure that at worst, someone 
might ask "please take this topic to COFF or elsewhere.

I figure that there's a little bit of wiggle room for other topics, but 
would not be surprised if I needed to justify why it belongs on TUHS vs 
COFF.  E.g. trying to resurrect an ancient protocol used by <bla>.

> similar to what's already the case with the "true" unixes, if I'm 
> allowed to use such a designation.

Eh ... can I get something to wash that down?

I'm "okay" with such designations if you will back them up with a hard 
definition of what qualifies or not.

> As a rule of thumb, something along the lines of: if it's got a 
> historical application (say, "how do I get UUCP running on this 
> Linux installation designed to replicate a 1992 system?") then it's 
> on topic; if it's solely about modern systems ("how do I get Wayland 
> running with my Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060 Super?") then it's off topic.

ACK



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die