aegroup@tekigm.UUCP (Dennis Ward) (11/20/85)
Several new groups are needed and several old groups should be renamed: net.micro.cbm should be net.micro.cbm8 for Commodore 8 bit machines net.micro.amiga should be net.micro.cbm16 for Commodore 16 bit machines net.micro.atari should be split into net.micro.atari8 for Atari 8 bit machines net.micro.atari16 for Atari 16 bit machines Similarly if either Commodore or Atari come out with 32 bit machines, then new subgroups could be established. ST and Amiga are too specific names, a more general generic name should be established so that if Atari or Commodore come out with new 16 bit machines with different names, the catagories would still be appropriate.
lenoil@mit-eddie.UUCP (Robert Scott Lenoil) (11/22/85)
In article <622@tekigm.UUCP> aegroup@tekigm.UUCP (Dennis Ward) writes: > > >Several new groups are needed and several old groups should be renamed: > >net.micro.cbm should be net.micro.cbm8 for Commodore 8 bit machines >net.micro.amiga should be net.micro.cbm16 for Commodore 16 bit machines >net.micro.atari should be split into > net.micro.atari8 for Atari 8 bit machines > net.micro.atari16 for Atari 16 bit machines > >Similarly if either Commodore or Atari come out with 32 bit machines, then new >subgroups could be established. ST and Amiga are too specific names, a more >general generic name should be established so that if Atari or Commodore come >out with new 16 bit machines with different names, the catagories would still >be appropriate. Why rename a newsgroup simply for the sake of renaming it? Net.micro.cbm has had its name for years. Its traffic has been steadily decreasing, especially with the introduction of net.micro.amiga. Commodore only has one 16 bit machine, namely the amiga (excepting its Z8000 thingy and its PC compatible, which aren't sold in the US, and hence have not been the subject of any discussion in these newsgroups), so renaming net.micro.amiga to net.micro. anything-else would be misleading and stupid (especially since ~.amiga is already too highly trafficked to support discussion of another machine. To summarize (for the Commodore newsgroups, I don't know about Atari): * net.micro.cbm currently only discusses the Commodore 64, with occasional articles on the Commodore 128. * net.micro.amiga only discusses the Commodore Amiga, and could absolutely not support any more machines. Therefore, renaming these newsgroups to more generic names (e.g. net.micro. cbm{8,16}) would not serve any useful purpose. I'd be willing to bet that the same is true for the Atari newsgroups as well. It sounds to me like Dennis Ward is a programmer that just learned about abstraction, and wants to apply it to every facet of living. Robert Lenoil {ihnp4,allegra,harvard,decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lenoil
joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) (11/23/85)
"What's in a name? A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet." Romeo and Juliet, by William Shakespeare In article <622@tekigm.UUCP>, aegroup@tekigm.UUCP (Dennis Ward) writes: > Several new groups are needed and several old groups should be renamed: > > net.micro.cbm should be net.micro.cbm8 for Commodore 8 bit machines > net.micro.amiga should be net.micro.cbm16 for Commodore 16 bit machines > net.micro.atari should be split into > net.micro.atari8 for Atari 8 bit machines > net.micro.atari16 for Atari 16 bit machines > > Similarly if either Commodore or Atari come out with 32 bit machines, then new > subgroups could be established. As I understand it, the 32-bit Atari will also be an "ST", and that it will have a similar architecture to the 16-bit Atari. (For example, you can bet damn well that a 32-bit 386-based IBM pc will be MS-DOS based.) If the new commodore is not an Amiga, no harm is done. The current system works just fine. (People used net.micro.mac to talk about the Lisa, and nobody complained.) Because enough other things are broken, there should be a bias for status quo barring some great overriding requirement. -- Joel West (619) 457-9681 CACI, Inc. Federal, 3344 N. Torrey Pines Ct., La Jolla, CA 92037 {cbosgd,ihnp4,pyramid,sdcsvax,ucla-cs}!gould9!joel gould9!joel@nosc.ARPA
jons@islenet.UUCP (Jonathan Spangler) (11/24/85)
In article <622@tekigm.UUCP> aegroup@tekigm.UUCP (Dennis Ward) writes: >Similarly if either Commodore or Atari come out with 32 bit machines, then new >subgroups could be established. ST and Amiga are too specific names, a more >general generic name should be established so that if Atari or Commodore come >out with new 16 bit machines with different names, the catagories would still >be appropriate. No, I totally disagree. You obviously have not seen the size of net.micro.amiga or net.micro.atari. It seems to me that if anything we *really* need to split the atari group, in the same manner as the split of the Commodore group. We need to have net.micro.atari for all pre-ST machines. Then, have a net.micro.520st or net.micro.st for the ST. Please, Mr. Spafford, if you read this, consider it a plea well-done. Aloha, Jonathan Spangler {ihnp4,dual,vortex}!islenet!jons -- Jonathan Spangler {ihnp4,vortex,dual}!islenet!jons
fox@bnrmtv.UUCP (Richard Fox) (11/27/85)
> > > Several new groups are needed and several old groups should be renamed: > > net.micro.cbm should be net.micro.cbm8 for Commodore 8 bit machines > net.micro.amiga should be net.micro.cbm16 for Commodore 16 bit machines > net.micro.atari should be split into > net.micro.atari8 for Atari 8 bit machines > net.micro.atari16 for Atari 16 bit machines > > Similarly if either Commodore or Atari come out with 32 bit machines, then new > subgroups could be established. ST and Amiga are too specific names, a more > general generic name should be established so that if Atari or Commodore come > out with new 16 bit machines with different names, the catagories would still > be appropriate. I disagree with the above. If we start breaking everything up into groups based on certain aspects of the subject we would have: net.jokes.clean net.jokes.offensive net.jokes.bad net.jokes.notunderstandable net.jokes.notreallyajoke I think you get the picture! I like having the .cbm and .atari groups the way they are because I can post articles that may reflect all commodores and not have to post the article in many places. Any comments may be sent to /dev/null ....... rich
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (11/27/85)
This is an obvious use of subgroups. The 520st group should be called net.micro.atari.520st. net.micro.amiga probably should have been net.micro.cbm.amiga, and net.micro.mac should be net.micro.apple.mac.
boomsma@ark.UUCP (Raoul Boomsma) (11/29/85)
In article <1639@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: >This is an obvious use of subgroups. The 520st group should be called >net.micro.atari.520st. net.micro.amiga probably should have been >net.micro.cbm.amiga, and net.micro.mac should be net.micro.apple.mac. I think it isn't very useful to give the Atari ST group a name like 'net.micro.atari.520st'. It should better be called 'net.micro.st' or 'net.micro.atarist'. Reasons: It creates less subdirectories than you want to create. Much news administrators won't be glad if the tree for net.micro is expanded. This is also the case for net.micro.amiga and net.micro.mac. The name suggests this newsgroup can't be read by 260ST or 520ST+ owners. Better choose some general names for one type of micro- computer. My opinion is that a newsgroup 'net.micro.st' has to be created soon! -- Raoul Boomsma Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam ...!mcvax!boomsma@ark.UUCP