farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) (11/10/89)
###################
CALL FOR DISCUSSION
###################
###################################
comp.sys.apple2.tech
###################################
A forum to discuss technical issues specific to the Apple II
family of computers. The creation of this forum will allow the
Apple II enthusiasts of USENET separate forums to discuss items of a
non-technical nature (how to use software packages, what hard drive to
buy, etc) and items of a technical nature (what's wrong with this code?,
how do I use this toolbox call?, etc.), in separate forums, thus reducing
the amount of time spent sorting through unrelated articles.
This forum will not be moderated.
-Cary Farrier
--
+--------------+-------------------------+
| Cary Farrier | farrier@apple.com |
+--------------+-------------------------+abc@BRL.MIL (Brinton Cooper) (11/10/89)
This is probably a good idea, but it's a shame that it had to come about because folks subverted the original intent of comp.sys.apple (nee info-apple@brl.mil) with blather about copyright laws, piracy, profanity, and whether Apple Computer is out to get them. BRL.MIL will not provide a gateway between comp.sys.apple2.tech and the Internet or between comp.sys.apple2.tech and the Bitnet. In fact, BRL.MIL very likely will cease distributing Info-Apple in a month or so. If you can read comp.sys.apple at your site, you should make arrangements to do so and notify info-apple-request@brl.mil to take you off the info-apple distribution. I am presently making enquiries about continued service to our friends on the Bitnet. _Brint aka info-apple-request@brl.mil
dcw@athena.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) (11/10/89)
I second the motion. Make the new group! Dave Whitney dcw@sun-bear.lcs.mit.edu ...!mit-eddie!sun-bear!dcw dcw@athena.mit.edu My employer pays me well. This, however, does not mean he agrees with me. I wrote Z-Link & BinSCII. Send me bug reports. I use a //GS. Send me Tech Info.
rankins@zaire.crd.ge.com (raymond r rankins) (11/10/89)
Sounds like a great idea to me. Do we really have to wait two weeks (according to USENET Guidelines) before we have a vote on this? Ray ___ Ray Rankins | (518) 387-7340 | INTERNET: rankins@zaire.crd.ge.com 2 Moonglow Rd. | (518) 583-3320 | COMPUSERVE: 71131,3236 Gansevoort, NY 12831 | | AmericaOnline: RayRankins <insert standard disclaimer here>
farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) (11/10/89)
In article <3792@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> rankins@zaire.crd.ge.com (raymond r rankins) writes: > >Sounds like a great idea to me. Do we really have to wait two weeks >(according to USENET Guidelines) before we have a vote on this? 14-30 days. Voting period is 21 days. :-(. The delay is good, however, in that it allows for time to toss the idea around, and come up with solutions to problems that arise, such as how to get it to the people on BITNET (although this may not be an issue if nobody will pick up INFO-APPLE when BRL drops it :-( ). > >Ray >___ >Ray Rankins | (518) 387-7340 | INTERNET: rankins@zaire.crd.ge.com >2 Moonglow Rd. | (518) 583-3320 | COMPUSERVE: 71131,3236 >Gansevoort, NY 12831 | | AmericaOnline: RayRankins ><insert standard disclaimer here> Cary Farrier -- +--------------+-------------------------+ | Cary Farrier | farrier@apple.com | +--------------+-------------------------+
bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (Bob Lindabury) (11/10/89)
> In-Reply-To: message from farrier@apple.com > > A forum to discuss technical issues specific to the Apple II > family of computers. The creation of this forum will allow the > Apple II enthusiasts of USENET separate forums to discuss items of a > non-technical nature (how to use software packages, what hard drive to > buy, etc) and items of a technical nature (what's wrong with this code?, > how do I use this toolbox call?, etc.), in separate forums, thus reducing > the amount of time spent sorting through unrelated articles. > > This forum will not be moderated. I think that a .tech forum is the best way to go. There seems to be enough tech discussion happening in this forum to justify the birth of the added tech forum. It seems to work well with the Amiga forums although technical stuff seems to creep into the general forum quite often. I also think that the best idea I've seen for weeding out the questions that have been answered several times is to have a monthly "intro to info-apple" file posted to this forum (intro to comp.sys.apple.tech for the tech forum) that would detail general information covered previously, net-etiquitte (sorry, spelling isn't my forte) as well as a general overview of what these forums objectives and rules are. Most of this information would be just repeated from month to month. Some of the more interesting discussion on topics of general interest (in the hopes that they wouldn't have to be repeated over and over again) could be added to the file each month. Just check out how they are doing it in the Amiga list. It seems to work quite nicely. -- Bob _________________________ Pro-Graphics 201/469-0049 __________________________ InterNet: bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com | ProLine: bobl@pro-graphics UUCP: ..crash!pro-graphics!bobl | CServe: 70347,2344 ARPA/DDN: ..crash!pro-graphics!bobl@nosc.mil | Amer. Online: Graphics3D ___________ ____________ Raven Enterprises - 25 Raven Ave. Piscataway, NJ 08854
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (11/11/89)
In article <5100@internal.Apple.COM> farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes: > comp.sys.apple2.tech > A forum to discuss technical issues specific to the Apple II >family of computers. Excuse me, but that's what the existing INFO-APPLE Internet newsgroup (gatewayed as USENET comp.sys.apple) is for.
emerrill@tippy.uucp (11/12/89)
/* Written 9:52 pm Nov 9, 1989 by lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com in tippy:apple */ >I personally think the apple2.tech forum is a cop-out for the people from >Apple who don't want to hear any kind of criticism from the established user >base. Why does it concern you what they wish to read on their own time? They are reading this net to _help_ us with our _problems_--not to hear megs of messages saying how awful Apple is treating us. It would be nice to send _constructive_ criticism to Apple. Have you noticed that they don't reply to outrageous Apple bashing? Could it be they simply skip over posts that have no substance? Thanks Dave, Matt, Cary, and the others who's names escape me...(wombat and jazzman come to mind...) for being here voluntarily to help us! _________________________________________________________ | | | Eric Merrill tippy!emerrill@newton.physics.purdue.edu | | | | My other witty .sig is in the shop being repaired. | |_________________________________________________________|
cyliao@wam.UMD.EDU (11/14/89)
Yes, please make it a new Newsgroup. I cannot catch up with more then 100 articles each day, specially when many of them a kinda meaningless. -- _____________________________________________________________________________ | "When is a revolution legal? When it |Chun Yao Liao +++ cyliao@wam.umd.edu| | succeeds." -August Strindberg | The Oriental from Argentina! | |___________Don't we need a revolution on the computer technology?____________|
farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) (11/14/89)
In article <11583@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: > >Excuse me, but that's what the existing INFO-APPLE Internet newsgroup >(gatewayed as USENET comp.sys.apple) is for. You're excused. Perhaps comp.sys.apple was originally intended as a technical forum, but now the needs have grown along with the needs of the Apple II users: not all the users are interested in the same information. Cary -- +--------------+-------------------------+ | Cary Farrier | farrier@apple.com | +--------------+-------------------------+
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (11/14/89)
In article <5168@internal.Apple.COM> farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes: > Perhaps comp.sys.apple was originally intended >as a technical forum, but now the needs have grown along with the needs >of the Apple II users: not all the users are interested in the same >information. Well gee, welcome to the real world. It's always been that way, and the rest of us just discard messages that don't interest us. If you have a decent news system interface, this is easy to do. Short of moderation, you're just going to move the "problem" (as you perceive it) into another newsgroup, and cause the existing audience to have to subscribe to two newsgroups instead of one. We tried this years ago with the INFO-UNIX and UNIX-WIZARDS Internet mailing lists (gatewayed as USENET comp.unix.questions and comp.unix.wizards) and found that technical discussion could spring up in the novice list while silly discussions continued to spring up in the wizard list. Nearly everyone either subscribes to both newsgroups or to neither. So why add complexity in a system that is already creaking at the seams?
muller@Alliant.COM (Jim Muller) (11/15/89)
In article <8911132105.AA06474@epsl.UMD.EDU> cyliao@wam.UMD.EDU writes: > Yes, please make it a new Newsgroup. I cannot catch up with more then 100 > articles each day, specially when many of them a kinda meaningless. I'd sure like to see comp.sys.apple (or any other apple ][ or // or 2 or II group) become more meaningful. But I don't know if comp.sys.apple2.tech is the answer. As it is, all I see is a string of message titles that read like Shrinkit, listserver, printshop, apple's-commitment-to-the-//, and a dozen other items for which I have absolutely no use or understanding. The funny thins is that I *do program* my //e, usually in Pascal but sometimes in Applesoft, and have published some stuff for it, but I *still* can make heads or tails out of most of the contents of comp.sys.apple. If an apple2.tech group will help, then great. But I'm afraid all it will do is make a smaller group of titles which still mean little or nothing. Now if someone could show me how to find more *time* to program... -- - Jim Muller
4156an@GMUVAX.GMU.EDU (11/15/89)
I'm definitely in favor of starting up a separate feed for "technical"
discussions -- I've heard complaints from people saying that the feed
had too much misc. discussion, trying to aim at too many people, to
have "adequate" (whatever that means, exactly) technical support
(although having people like Matt and Dave around to answer tech
questions is GREAT! :). Gotta agree with (someone, forgot who) who
suggested it should be "comp.sys.apple2.programming" -- "tech" isn't
sufficiently limiting, and we'd start getting all sorts of loose
messages on both feeds. Not too useful THAT way.
Joseph F. Schober, Sysop, StarPort BBS [703/931-0947 - 3/12/2400]
UUCP: crash!gnh-starport!jschober ======================
ARPA: crash!gnh-starport!jschober@nosc.mil Amer-Online: JSchober
INET: jschober@gnh-starport.cts.com infrequently->CompuServe: 72727,2765
4156an@gmuvax.gmu.edu ======================lvirden@pro-tcc.cts.com (Larry Virden) (11/18/89)
In-Reply-To: message from adm!smoke!gwyn@nyu.edu
Yes, why not create a comp.sys.apple.bellyache and have all the Mac and Apple
II belly aching go over there?
--
Larry W. Virden ProLine: pro-tcc!lvirden
674 Falls Place Work: lvirden@cas.bitnet
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-1614 Aline: LVIRDEN
CIS: 75046,606SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (12/06/89)
On Thu, 9 Nov 89 18:16:38 GMT you said: > CALL FOR DISCUSSION > ################### > > comp.sys.apple2.tech > > A forum to discuss technical issues specific to the Apple II >family of computers. > >This forum will not be moderated. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sorry I haven't had time to enter a reply to this proposal earlier. I don't believe an *unmoderated* list will accomplish the desired objective. There are two problems. First, as others have pointed out, unmoderated lists are inherently undisciplined. Hence the likely result (in the near future) is one list that is about two-thirds technical and one-third other (some simply innocently posted to the wrong list) and the existing list with about one-third technical and two-thirds other. The second problem is that anyone with something to "get off his chest" who perceives that Apple's employees primarily read only the technical list is going to post the comments, complaints, pointed suggestions to comp.tech.apple2 <--- seem like a reasonable name? As long as the list is unmoderated, complaining about the innappropriateness of such posts will only add to the non-technical "noise." I believe the goal is much more likely to be achieved by a MODERATED list. Most moderated lists produce "digests" (info-kermit is a pretty good example), but it should be possible to have a moderated list which mails individual messages. Brint Cooper always resisted the notion of moderating the list (perceived as too much work for volunteer labor). However, the magnitude of the task may be limited by having the existing (unmoderated) comp.sys.apple as an uninhibited alternate outlet. I'd recommend that comp.tech.apple2 BE MODERATED by someone at Apple DTS, and that the moderator act primarily as a traffic director. A query that comes in could be forwarded to someone likely to be able to answer it (not necessarily someone at Apple -- Kermit questions should be sent to Ted Medin <medin-t@shark.nosc.mil> for example) and the question and answer (only ONE answer :-) could be in one post. If the moderator isn't sure who might be able to post an answer, the query could be posted (general solicitation of replies). Mail sent to comp.tech.apple2 that really isn't appropriate for the list could be either posted to comp.sys.apple or returned to sender (maybe forwarded to info-mac -- which IS a moderated list). A MODERATED comp.tech.apple2 would provide a relatively lean, focused list limited to technical issues while preserving comp.sys.apple's merry anarchy. I don't think Marty Hoag (at VM1.NoDak.Edu) will have any problem arranging to provide BITNET subscribers with APP-TECH as well as INFO-APP (it would be polite to ask :-) /s Murph <Sewall%UConnVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.Edu> [Internet] or ...{psuvax1 or mcvax}!uconnvm.bitnet!sewall [UUCP] + Standard disclaimer applies ("The opinions expressed are my own" etc.)
cwilson@NISC.SRI.COM (Chan Wilson) (12/09/89)
Cary writes: >> CALL FOR DISCUSSION >> ################### >> >> comp.sys.apple2.tech >> >> A forum to discuss technical issues specific to the Apple II >>family of computers. >> >>This forum will not be moderated. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Murph replies: >I don't believe an *unmoderated* list will accomplish the desired >objective. [..deleted..] >I believe the goal is much more likely to be achieved by a MODERATED >list. Most moderated lists produce "digests" (info-kermit is a pretty >good example), but it should be possible to have a moderated list which >mails individual messages. Yes, I like this idea. Some of the other technical groups are moderated, and have individual messages. I believe sun-spots is a good example. Granted, the moderator has control over what get through, but he's just acting as an editor. [..more things..] >comp.tech.apple2 <--- seem like a reasonable name? As long as the list I'd rather go with comp.sys.apple2.tech, there being no comp.tech.* groups; other groups have gone to *.tech (amiga), and it would be an excellent time to change comp.sys.apple to comp.sys.apple2, and it fits the "logic" tree better. <logic. what a concept :> >I'd recommend that comp.tech.apple2 BE MODERATED by someone at Apple >DTS [....] Uhm... well, okay. I don't have any problems with that, but that's a good 3-4 hours work *per day*, I'd say. Then again, maybe not. >A MODERATED comp.tech.apple2 would provide a relatively lean, focused >list limited to technical issues while preserving comp.sys.apple's >merry anarchy. Love that anarchy. <grin> Well, shall we do this before New Years? ................ Chan Wilson -- cwilson@nisc.sri.com <or> cwilson@nic.ddn.mil 'A computer operator at SRI International' "I think, therefore...uh...I should be?" ...UUCP/GS in contemplation mode. More to follow... ................