bradd@gssc.UUCP (Brad Davis) (05/17/88)
In article <5624@sgistl.SGI.COM> larry@sgistl.SGI.COM (Larry Autry) writes: > >The unix newsgroups are subdivided. One for wizards and one for neophytes. >If the subject is somewhere in between levels of difficulty then the poster >has a decision to make where to post. Perhaps this group should be divided >into comp.sys.ibm.pc and comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech. Any agreement? Any dissent? > > Larry Autry >{ucbvax,sun,ames,pyramid,decwrl}!sgi!sgistl!larry This is a very good idea. Let's vote on it! Brad Davis ====== ====== ====== US MAIL: 9590 SW Gemini Dr. == == == Beaverton, OR 97005 == == == == == == PHONE: (503) 641-2200 == == == == UUCP: uunet!tektronix!sequent!gssc!bradd ====== ====== ====== Disclaimer: I'm a mushroom. The Graphics Experts "Practice safe computing. Wear a write-protect tab."
pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (05/17/88)
[by the way: if you follow up on this discussion, check the Newsgroups: line; I'm sure the comp.sys.misc people don't care much about PC stuff] In article <5624@sgistl.SGI.COM> larry@sgistl.SGI.COM (Larry Autry) writes: > >The unix newsgroups are subdivided. One for wizards and one for neophytes. >If the subject is somewhere in between levels of difficulty then the poster >has a decision to make where to post. Perhaps this group should be divided >into comp.sys.ibm.pc and comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech. Any agreement? Any dissent? Larry provides a very good reason for not splitting this way right in his own posting: splitting groups along wizard/neophyte lines simply causes confusion and lots of cross-posting! If you had a question, who would you rather go to for an answer: the wizards or the neophytes? If you knew enough about stuff to answer other people's questions, would you think of yourself as a neophyte? I made a suggestion in news.groups a few weeks ago regarding this stuff. It was generally received well, but needs polishing; hopefully y'all can help! Here's the gist of it: If we can split the group along *topical* lines, there's a much better chance that the split will be successful [I define success in this case as: People know where to post, and it isn't often in both groups]. My suggestion: Step 1) comp.sys.ibm.pc (or preferably c.s.msdos): for H/W discussions comp.msdos: for Firmware/ S/W discussions Step 2) comp.sys.ibm.pc/c.s.msdos for HW comp.msdos.kernel: for kernel-related discussions (BIOS, DOS calls, interrupts, device drivers, handling TSR's from a guts level viewpoint, DOS bugs, etc. comp.msdos.apps: for other S/W discussions, including applications programming, applications themselves, etc. Step 3) comp.sys.ibm.pc/c.s.msdos as above comp.msdos.kernel as above comp.msdos.apps: for discussions about applications programs (not how-to-program but about the programs themselves) comp.msdos.<something>: for discussions re: applications programming (i.e. not kernel stuff), including .BAT files, the ever-present echo and environment questions, etc. Personally, I'd prefer to skip straight to step 3; we certainly have enough traffic to justify a 1-into-4 split, if it is a good split! The main question I have is: what is a good word for <something> in the above suggestion? I started with placeholders of 'hlevprog' and 'llevprog' (high level programming and low-level programming). Somebody suggested replacing 'llevprog' with 'kernel'. I like that. I haven't had ANY suggestions for a good word that summarizes high-level- programming-issues. HEEEEEEELP! Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (05/18/88)
Well, I am strongly OPPOSED to it! There are many interesting postings, which spin off other postings that are themselves interesting but tangential. I want to to see those postings. I DON'T want to have to chase all over the freakin' net trying to find the article that followed up. I was quite interested in this RLL business. Great -- now I have to subscribe to comp.periphs, and wade through an enormous mass of postings about laser printers for Macintoshes and Vaxen. Okay, that's more-or-less reasonable, but if I can kill all those to read the RLL postings in comp.periphs, I can do it in comp.sys.ibm.pc too. Consider sci.space, sci.astro, sci.space.shuttle. A lot of stuff gets cross-posted because it is as pertinent to one ill-defined subdivision as to another. What's the point??? Yet Another Newsgroup will not cut down on net traffic. It will not increase net traffic, possibly excepting a slight ballooning of control messages. It will not make it easier for me to read the things I'm interested in. It will not let me avoid the garbage postings, which are not category-specific so much as person-specific or particular-topic-specific. It WILL clutter things up just that much further. Consider an analogy: We all like tree-structured directories, right? We all like to break our files up into different groups. Well, the ultimate is to break a directory up to the point where EACH and EVERY file is the sole leaf of its own particular subdirectory. So why don't we all do this? Because too much of a good thing is a bad thing, that's why. I want technical articles. The articles I don't want to see, I can 'next' past or 'kill'. I really don't want to waste my time and energy deciding which subdivision of the topic-universe my latest thought should be pigeon- holed into. It's the thought that counts, not the bureaucratic assumption that all thoughts must fit into exactly one of a set of pre-approved categories. You wanna flame me for this? Fine. Flames to alt.flame. You already have a pigeonhole for that. In fact, this whole discussion should be in comp.newsgroups (or whatever the correct name is) -- by posting here, you tacitly admit that finding the proper pigeonhole isn't the important part of a posting. Sick of this penchant for stereotyping everything ahead of time, -Bob Montante
vote@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (05/18/88)
In article <8837@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (RAMontante) writes: >Well, I am strongly OPPOSED to it! [ANY split of ANY kind] >... I DON'T want to have to chase all over the >freakin' net trying to find the article that followed up. >Yet Another Newsgroup will not cut down on net traffic... >It WILL clutter things up just that much further. > >Consider an analogy: We all like tree-structured directories, right? We all >like to break our files up into different groups. Well, the ultimate is to >break a directory up to the point where EACH and EVERY file is the sole leaf >of its own particular subdirectory. So why don't we all do this? Because too ^^^^^^^^^^^ >much of a good thing is a bad thing, that's why. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THAT is precisely why we need some kind of split! From your line of reasoning, the ultimate is to combine all topics until EACH and EVERY article is contained in the same newsgroup. So why don't we all do this? Because when there is too much stuff in a newsgroup, it becomes *very* difficult to skip over the stuff we aren't interested in! We must kill the trash in order to find the articles on topics of interest to us. This is what is happening to the c.s.i.p group. When a group has too much traffic, it is time to split it up. That's the way the net works. I'd like to know: if you <generic you> don't think there is enough traffic in c.s.i.p. to justify a split, how much traffic must there be before you are ready to split it? Or do you think we should un-split and go back to comp.sys.misc? [once upon a time, the pc discussions were not separated out from other small computers!] Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (05/19/88)
What we need is a way to get topics (like this) where they belong,
talk.bizarre or /dev/null. In over a hundred articles the only useful
thing was a question on putting command.com in RAMdisk and the answers
to it.
This should not be a discussion group for non-PC topics.
I don't want to hear about your Mac here, I don't care what you think
about the Apple lawsuit, the only opinions that coult are the jury's.
Talk about it in politics or headlines. I don't care what you think
about how much the chairman of Lotus makes, not does he.
This group used to be filled with stuff like "I've got a problem, can
someone help?" and "Here's something useful I found." As much as I want
a GIF newsgroup, there's a newgroup newsgroup (say it three times fast)
just for that. We all agree that there are over a hundred people
interested, so why beat it to death. Call it anything you damn well
please as long as you do it somewhere else.
comp.binaries.ibm.pc is now moderated because the signal to noise ratio
reached zero. If we don't want this moderated I suggest a little
restraint about topics and how much of an original article to quote. My
kill file for this group is one of the biggest I have.
If you disagree please do it by mail.
--
bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
{uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -mepjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (05/20/88)
In article <229@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes:
...Step 3)
...
... comp.sys.ibm.pc/c.s.msdos as above
... comp.msdos.kernel as above
... comp.msdos.apps: for discussions about applications programs (not
... how-to-program but about the programs themselves)
... comp.msdos.<something>: for discussions re: applications programming
... (i.e. not kernel stuff), including .BAT files, the ever-present
... echo and environment questions, etc.
How about:
comp.sys.ibm.pc for h/w
comp.msdos.kernel as you've suggested
comp.msdos.programs for discussions of distributed (i.e., PD,
begware, or commercial) programs
comp.msdos.shell for discussions on BATs, echo, environment, etc.
...Personally, I'd prefer to skip straight to step 3; we certainly have enough
... traffic to justify a 1-into-4 split, if it is a good split!
I agree.loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) (05/20/88)
In article <229@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: >In article <5624@sgistl.SGI.COM> larry@sgistl.SGI.COM (Larry Autry) writes: >> >>The unix newsgroups are subdivided. One for wizards and one for neophytes. >>into comp.sys.ibm.pc and comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech. Any agreement? Any dissent? > >If you had a question, who would you rather go to for an answer: the wizards >or the neophytes? Look at unix.wizzy. It makes no diff where you post cuz they are only names. You might as well flip a coin. > >If you knew enough about stuff to answer other people's questions, would you >think of yourself as a neophyte? No, I'd use e-mail. > >My suggestion: > >Step 1) >Step 2) >Step 3) >Pete Look at the actual traffic in this group. There just isn't enough real poop to justify any additional groups. Where are you going to put the innumeral "Hey, me too, i'm missing parts of ....". Maybe comp.sys.ibm.me.too? Or the stimulating and informative comparisons ... "Arc/zoo/blah/blah"? How about comp.sys.ibm.re.invent.the.wheel.again.again.again. Or the posting where people try to get organized and ask for opinions and votes? comp.sys.ibm.waste.of.time.and.space? I think there are two natural groups that you've overlooked... comp.sys.ibm.flame.city & comp.sys.ibm.bit.bucket Everything can fit in these easily. If not, use e-mail.
pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (05/21/88)
In article <643@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes: [in response to my suggestions about how to split up c.s.i.p] > Look at the actual traffic in this group. There just isn't > enough real poop to justify any additional groups. Where are The definition of 'real poop' is up to the reader. What's 'real' to you may be 'poop' as far as I'm concerned, and vice versa :-)! > you going to put the innumeral "Hey, me too, i'm missing parts > of ....". Maybe comp.sys.ibm.me.too? Or the stimulating How about the appropriate group that exists *now*? comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d? I'd love to see that group regionalized, by the way... > and informative comparisons ... "Arc/zoo/blah/blah"? How about Software comparisons would go in the applications-program group. (One good suggestion I've received by email is 'comp.msdos.user'). > comp.sys.ibm.re.invent.the.wheel.again.again.again. Or the Depends on which wheel you're talking about. In general, it would be good for a few people to step forward and offer to archive the answers to common question topics. Right now, the only pc-related topic for which this is being done is the ever-better interrupt list. The same could be done for ECHO/etc patches, or compression discussions, or... That's how things used to be in the good 'ole days on the net: If you asked a common question, you'd get an offer (by email) from someone to send you a summary of prior discussions. > posting where people try to get organized and ask for opinions > and votes? comp.sys.ibm.waste.of.time.and.space? I think there Asking publicly for private opinions makes lots of sense. You could have sent me YOUR opinion privately, for example. As it is, I feel compelled to defend my request publicly, and we have more comp.sys.ibm.waste.of.time.and. space! > are two natural groups that you've overlooked... > > comp.sys.ibm.flame.city & comp.sys.ibm.bit.bucket > > Everything can fit in these easily. If not, use e-mail. Only garbage should be posted, and useful stuff should be emailed? I'll parse that as a joke :-( and assume that you simply have an attitude problem (understandable after all the trash we've been seeing). To summarize: in a perfect net with all contributions coming from grade A people who have lots of common sense, the signal to noise ratio would be wonderful and there'd be no need to split up c.s.i.p, because it would be a self-moderating group. That isn't reality. We need a way to deal with reality, and yelling at people isn't helping. Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746
ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) (05/31/88)
As we are discussing the validity and necessity of a new newsgroup, it might
be an idea to demonstrate our net.credentials on this subject *BY HOLDING
THE DISCUSSION IN THE CORRECT NEWSGROUP NEWS.GROUPS*.
If you read news.groups you will find that there is also a much more radical
proposal already being discussed (though spasmodically).
It is an unfortunate net.fact that this sort of discussion can easily
generate more traffic than the whole technical group's subject matter, thus,
please, all followups to news.groups (no, that does not mean crosspost to,
it means followup to).
BTW I do feel that a more radical restructuring *is* required.
--
Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!{philabs, mnetor}!micomvax!ray
Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347
600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455
St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090