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)
To stop discussion before it even starts, I'd like to remind people that
discussion of renaming/removing/creating newsgroups goes on in net.news.group.
I urge people to not clutter up our newsgroups with personal statements
about the propriety of our newsgroup names. Dave proposed new newsgroup
names; anybody who feels strongly about it one way or the other should
post to and read net.news.group. I myself have already posted my feelings
on the matter there.
Robert Lenoil
USENET: {ihnp4,decvax!genrad,harvard,allegra}!mit-eddie!lenoil
ARPA: lenoil@eddie.mit.edu (lenoil@mit-eddie.arpa)
CSNET: lenoil@mit-mcjoel@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.