frotz@drivax.UUCP (Frotz) (08/19/88)
In article <47200010@hcx1> ldh@hcx1.SSD.HARRIS.COM writes: > comp.sys.ibmpc.hard[.to .be expanded?] > comp.sys.ibmpc.soft[.to be expanded?] > comp.sys.ibmpc.soft.dos > comp.sys.ibmpc.soft.os2 How about trying to shorten the names/heirarchical levels of the group? I think that the amount of traffic in comp.sys.ibm.pc covers non-100% compatibles close enough to initially make the following name changes: comp.pc.hard technical discussions comp.pc.soft software discussions comp.pc.prog programming discussions (how do I make this hardware to that function.) Further expansion might be as follows: comp.pc.hard.tech for PC [clone/peripheral] discussions comp.pc.soft.apps for PC Application discussions comp.pc.soft.dos for PC/MSDOS (or compatible) discussions comp.pc.soft.os2 for OS/2 comp.pc.soft.os for non DOS/OS2 OS' or environments (Yes, they really do exist Virginia!) --Frotz @Digital Research, Incorporated amdahl!drivax!frotz 70 Garden Court, B10 (408) 649-3896 Monterey, California 93940 Ask for John Fa'atuai
andytoy@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Andy Toy, Applications Support Group) (08/26/88)
In article <3684@drivax.UUCP> frotz@drivax.UUCP (Frotz) writes: >How about trying to shorten the names/heirarchical levels of the >group? I think that the amount of traffic in comp.sys.ibm.pc covers >non-100% compatibles close enough to initially make the following name >changes: > comp.pc.hard technical discussions > comp.pc.soft software discussions > comp.pc.prog programming discussions >Further expansion might be as follows: > comp.pc.hard.tech for PC [clone/peripheral] discussions > comp.pc.soft.apps for PC Application discussions > comp.pc.soft.dos for PC/MSDOS (or compatible) discussions > comp.pc.soft.os2 for OS/2 > comp.pc.soft.os for non DOS/OS2 OS' or environments I don't believe that creating a new hierarchical level for the IBM PC and compatibles would be beneficial. The PC is an IBM system so comp.sys.ibm.pc seems perfectly reasonable for a newsgroup name. If you want to talk about OS related topics then create a newsgroup that conforms to the current naming conventions, i.e. comp.os.msdos, comp.os.os2. Those wanting to discuss other operating systems can post to the other comp.os groups. Discussion about other software is another problem. Where should one post articles about other software such as applications? Should there be a comp.os.msdos.soft or comp.sys.ibm.pc.soft or perhaps comp.soft.ibm.pc or ...? Or is posting to comp.os.msdos or comp.sys.ibm.pc adequate? Seems to me that it would fall under the comp.os category more that comp.sys, but it depends if the discussion is OS or system related. And then there may be more general questions about software that runs on multi-vendor environments such as software that has versions for IBM, DEC, Apple, UNIX, VMS, CMS, etc... Where should these be discussed? I guess one could cross-post to the various newsgroups or else create comp.soft... or something like that. These are juat some thoughts. My original point was that the current hierarchical framework should be used (i.e. comp.sys and comp.os) if possible and that creating a new second-level subgroup for the pc is a bit out of line (might as well create comp.vax while we're at it). -- Andy Toy, Applications Support Group, Department of Computing Services (DCS), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA N2L 3G1, 519/885-1211 x3417 UUCP: ...!watmath!watdcsu!andytoy NetNorth/BITNET/EARN: ANDYTOY AT WATDCSU Internet: andytoy@watdcsu.waterloo.edu New: andytoy@watdcsu.UWaterloo.CA