andytoy@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Andy Toy, Applications Support Group) (08/17/88)
In article <47200010@hcx1> ldh@hcx1.SSD.HARRIS.COM writes: >Probably a good idea to seperate the os from the hardware, but if you want >the new group to include other aspects of software (user appliactions as you >mentioned) ... then DON'T label it as .os. ! maybe should be: > comp.sys.ibmpc.hard[.to .be expanded?] > comp.sys.ibmpc.soft[.to be expanded?] >This way if soft becomes to large a group, then you make: > comp.sys.ibmpc.soft.os, or: > comp.sys.ibmpc.soft.dos & comp.sys.ibmpc.soft.os2 It would probably be a better(?) idea to stick with the current hierarchy of comp.os and comp.sys groups. Why create a new classification that does not exist for other comp.sys groups unless others will agree that this will be a standard hierarchical extension? (i.e. comp.sys.dec.soft and etc...) comp.os.msdos should be created for discussion of msdos stuff and software that runs under msdos. If people have pc's that run xenix or unix then they would discuss things on comp.os.{xenix,unix}. The other thing is that comp.sys.ibm.pc should *NOT* be renamed to comp.sys.ibm-pc or similar because there are other systems that IBM has other than PC's so one day there might be a comp.sys.ibm.ps2 or something else. -- 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: andytoy@watdcsu InterNet: andytoy@watdcsu.waterloo.edu New: andytoy@watdcsu.UWaterloo.ca