kpicott%alias@csri.utoronto.ca (Socrates) (12/20/89)
Looking at the traffic distribution I would say that the best way to split up c.s.a would be to create either c.s.a.d for discussions about the Amiga, or c.s.a.questions to answer problems. (The latter probably makes the most sense.) What sayeth the net? -- Kevin Picott aka Socrates aka kpicott%alias@csri.toronto.edu Alias Research Inc. R+D Toronto, Ontario... like, downtown "There can be no offense where none is taken" - Japanese proverb
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (12/21/89)
In <5699@orca.wv.tek.com>, whansen@vsgft1.WV.TEK.COM (Bill Hansen;;63-171;;vsgft1) writes: >Actually I've always wanted comp.sys.amiga.a2000 comp.sys.amiga.a500 etc. >While I'm sympathetic to 500 owners who have bad power supplies or such, >I'd really rather not see a zillion postings about it. In the same light, >do you 500 owners really care about the latest whiz bang card for the 2000? Two things... it sort of leaves the 1000 owners out in the cold, and divides the Amiga groups along completely unnatural lines. Since software for the two machines is the same, and since there are many more similarities than differences between the two, this split would be completely inappropriate. Sure, a 500 owner might not be interested in 2000 peripherals, and vice versa, but where do the common questions go? Does a 500 owner that is having trouble with RAD: post to the 500 group? Nope... you may as well divide it based on which room in the house the machine is kept. -larry -- " All I ask of my body is that it carry around my head." - Thomas Alva Edison - +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
EJANDERS@MTUS5.BITNET (Ernie Anderson) (12/21/89)
In reference to the idea of splitting c.s.a into .discussion and .questions
areas....
This is not a bad idea on the surface, however on closer examination it breaks.
Most of the major traffic comes from people diverging into new threads from
someone's origional question. So if someone asks a question about the new
game they want to buy, and someone else starts rattling about things only
remotely related to the origional topic, then it should move to the discussion
portion, but you know people won't bother with that. I say that if things
were broken into those two groups, within a month, you wouldn't be able to
tell them apart by the contents at all.
I think it needs to be broken up, but into only a few, carefully selected
topics, to aviod cross posting as much as possible.
Ernie Anderson
EJANDERS@MTUS5.BITNET
"My opinions are my own, no one else would take credit for them!"cogswell@egrunix.UUCP (Dan Cogswell) (12/21/89)
In article <682@alias.UUCP> kpicott%alias@csri.utoronto.ca (Socrates) writes: >Looking at the traffic distribution I would say that the best way to split >up c.s.a would be to create either c.s.a.d for discussions about the Amiga, >or c.s.a.questions to answer problems. (The latter probably makes the most >sense.) "comp.sys.amiga.discussions?" Isn't that what "comp.sys.amiga" is? RE: c.s.a.questions. I don't know about you, but I'm not about to read a newsgroup with nothing but other peoples' problems in it. Maybe I'm a grouch, but I have enough of my own to devote time to solving others. On the other side of this, who's going to post a questions to a newsgroup that nobody reads (i.e. one that won't give them an answer)? >-- > Kevin Picott aka Socrates aka kpicott%alias@csri.toronto.edu > Alias Research Inc. R+D Toronto, Ontario... like, downtown > "There can be no offense where none is taken" - Japanese proverb -- Dan Cogswell | 9-Lives... | No, (313)625-3234 | Everything else | I *don't* INET: cogswell@unix.secs.oakland.edu | is just | understand UUCP: cogswell@egrunix.UUCP | cat food. | alt.slack!!!
jonabbey@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Abbey) (12/21/89)
Discussion of comp.sys.amiga.hardware or whatever group we wish to form should be carried out in news.groups, as a proposal has been made and a call for discussion is in effect. // /\ /\/\ | Jonathan Abbey - jonabbey@doc.cc.utexas.edu - (512) 926-5934 \X/ / \ / \ | Wildly interested in virtual reality / 3d graphics...
whansen@vsgft1.WV.TEK.COM (Bill Hansen;;63-171;;vsgft1) (12/22/89)
In article <682@alias.UUCP> kpicott%alias@csri.utoronto.ca (Socrates) writes: >Looking at the traffic distribution I would say that the best way to split >up c.s.a would be to create either c.s.a.d for discussions about the Amiga, >or c.s.a.questions to answer problems. > >What sayeth the net? > > Kevin Picott aka Socrates aka kpicott%alias@csri.toronto.edu Actually I've always wanted comp.sys.amiga.a2000 comp.sys.amiga.a500 etc. While I'm sympathetic to 500 owners who have bad power supplies or such, I'd really rather not see a zillion postings about it. In the same light, do you 500 owners really care about the latest whiz bang card for the 2000? Just a thought. Bill Hansen
filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) (12/22/89)
In article <682@alias.UUCP> Kevin Picott writes: >Looking at the traffic distribution I would say that the best way to split >up c.s.a would be to create either c.s.a.d for discussions about the Amiga, >or c.s.a.questions to answer problems. (The latter probably makes the most >sense.) >What sayeth the net? The problem with these suggestions is: what is the distinction between comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.{questions,discussion}? Questions lead to discussion, and vice versa, and what is comp.sys.amiga right now but a place for questions and discussion about the Amiga? Put it this way: what would be left in comp.sys.amiga if all the discussion about the Amiga went elsewhere? (Answer: "Xerox sues Apple!!!", unfortunately...) Adding a .discussion or .questions group would have the effect of splitting the current traffic into two groups, between which threads would be >randomly< distributed; with lots of cross-posting between the two. I don't think this is desirable. A spin-off group should have an unambiguous topic area. Note: followups directed to news.groups. Also a reminder that the discussion period regarding comp.sys.amiga.hardware is in progress in news.groups (with, however, hardly any traffic on the topic). The vote is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 1 through 15, 1990. DO NOT SEND VOTES UNTIL/UNLESS THE VOTE IS CALLED. Bela Lubkin * * // filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us CI$: 73047,1112 (slow) @ * * // belal@sco.com ..ucbvax!ucscc!{gorn!filbo,sco!belal} R Pentomino * \X/ Filbo @ Pyrzqxgl +408-476-4633 and XBBS +408-476-4945
jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Jules Cisek) (12/22/89)
In article <5699@orca.wv.tek.com>, whansen@vsgft1.WV.TEK.COM (Bill Hansen;;63-171;;vsgft1) writes: > Actually I've always wanted comp.sys.amiga.a2000 comp.sys.amiga.a500 etc. > While I'm sympathetic to 500 owners who have bad power supplies or such, > I'd really rather not see a zillion postings about it. In the same light, > do you 500 owners really care about the latest whiz bang card for the 2000? Yes, we do! -- Fight | // Julius A. Cisek jac423,jules |Don't Like a| \X/ ->crunch<- SUNYA, NY USA @leah.albany.edu | Be a Brave | IB...M I do think it's good... |Slave
peterson@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J. Peterson) (12/22/89)
In article <5699@orca.wv.tek.com> Bill Hansen writes: | In article <682@alias.UUCP> kpicott%alias@csri.utoronto.ca (Socrates) writes: | >Looking at the traffic distribution I would say that the best way to split | >up c.s.a would be to create either c.s.a.d for discussions about the Amiga, | >or c.s.a.questions to answer problems. | > | >What sayeth the net? | > | > Kevin Picott aka Socrates aka kpicott%alias@csri.toronto.edu I thought that Comp.Sys.Amiga *was* for Amiga discussions! I think Comp.Sys.Amiga.Questions makes much more sense. | Actually I've always wanted comp.sys.amiga.a2000 comp.sys.amiga.a500 etc. | While I'm sympathetic to 500 owners who have bad power supplies or such, | I'd really rather not see a zillion postings about it. In the same light, | do you 500 owners really care about the latest whiz bang card for the 2000? | | Just a thought. | | Bill Hansen Although I am a 500 owner and do not have much interest in 2000 hardware (I'm waiting for the 3000 bundled with Amix :-), I can see the potential for interest by 500 owners in the 2000 architecture. Aren't there bus extensions for the 500 that will accept Zorro cards? I must admit, though, that I also do not care for the "My power supply is flaking out ..." messages. But what about 500 owners considering moving up to the 2000 architecture? I'm sure there are a lot of people that read the net that would consider doing this at some point or another. Also, I'm not sure that the hardware discussions are delineated along the 500/2000 boundary enough to create a separate group for each. I still think C.S.A.Questions is a good idea for keeping crufty questions like these separated from the more serious hardware discussions. As soon as the call goes out, my vote will go in for C.S.A.Hardware. However, I would like to see discussion regarding C.S.A.Questions as well. Just another thought. Eric -- . |~~ Eric J. Peterson ... peterson@{cs,{nu,fsucs}.cs}.fsu.edu _O_] [ V "You cannot really know anything." -- William Payne (wpayne@digi.UUCP) _< >_ "How do you know?" -- Dan'l DanehyOakes (djo@PacBell.COM)
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (12/27/89)
[suggestions for comp.sys.amiga.discussions, c.s.a.hardware,c.s.a.games, and others deleted] I got it! why not have a different group created for each subject discussed and then have the group deleted when the subject dies out? comp.sys.amiga.place-subject-here That way everyone is happy! :-) Personally I like the set up the way it is now. c.s.a and c.s.a.t , and I think some people are getting a wee bit carried away with all this new group nonsense. I like c.s.a because it has a variety of subjects, from games to hardware to new operating systems and more. I don't think there is enough posting of any one subject to warrant splitting it off to it's own group. -- John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps. Accessable thru Starlink (Louisville KY) sparks@corpane.UUCP <><><><><><><><><><><> D.I.S.K. ph:502/968-5401 thru -5406 I'm the person your mother warned you about.