peterson@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J. Peterson) (12/14/89)
[Editor's Note: Sorry if this message has been distributed several times
across the net, but I've had problems with the mail system here. AGAIN,
here is a repost.]
--
Seems as though the talk about creating a Comp.Sys.Amiga.Games has subsided ...
and Amiga-Relay crashed right before my message about it went through! So
here's a repost which is actually a first post ...
After taking a look at the messages in here extensively for the past four weeks
or so since the messages first started appearing regarding C.S.A.Games, I've
noticed that relatively few of the messages pertain to games. However, C.S.A
is one of the top groups in terms of number and size of messages that pass
through it daily. There is just too much in C.S.A to keep up with if I miss
even a day, and even though I am an avid user of ^N and K, there are just too
many message threads to sift through ... (for instance, I've found that K
usually only deletes two or three messages AT THE MOST on the average ... this
means that there are approximately 30-50 individual threads going on in C.S.A
or more at any one time).
I've also noticed that most of the messages DO fall into a few individual
categories. Since it is not necessarily easy to sift through all of the C.S.A
messages to pick out individual categories, why not break them up into a few
separate groups? This makes sense ... that is what individual groups are for.
Here is a proposed division of the current C.S.A* group ...
comp.sys.amiga -- For miscelaneous or other short postings and message
threads that don't fit anywhere else. I would also recommend that
game messages go here, in Comp.Sys.Amiga.Questions, or in
Rec.Misc.Games.
comp.sys.amiga.tech -- Same as the current group, which is for highly
technical postings regarding hardware and AmigaDOS (and Amix as
well hopefully! 8-)
comp.sys.amiga.hardware -- For all the messages related to attaching
various peripherals to your Amiga, especially hard drives, expansion
chassis' (sorry, I'm a poor A-500 owner ...), expansion cards, etc.
comp.sys.amiga.art -- Covering all aspects of the Amiga in graphics and
sound production software and hardware, including topics such as
genlocks, MIDI, and animation. (Originally I had thought of
C.S.A.Graphics or C.S.A.Anim, but .Art seemed to cover it all better)
comp.sys.amiga.questions -- Similar to comp.unix.questions (whereas
C.S.A.Tech is similar to comp.unix.wizards). An area for messages
such as "What Fish Disk is Gdinglefidget Ver 1.4 on?" or "I've got
a problem using VLT with my Bogus Brothers 2400 modem ..."
There are various other ideas that fall into the "It-Would-Be-Nice-But-There-
Ain't-Enough-Readership" category, such as C.S.A.Games, C.S.A.AmigaDOS (or
Comp.OS.AmigaDOS ... probably the first one is better), C.S.A.Dealers ...
finally C.S.A.[Insert Your Interest Here]. But I think the above five groups
are a good suggestion. Suppose that the combined average of C.S.A. and
C.S.A.T is 125 messages per day. Distributing them out over five groups brings
each group down to 25 message per day (again on average), and it is easier to
avoid articles that you have no interest in (using the above, I personally
would skim C.S.A and C.S.A.Art and thoroughly read C.S.A.Questions).
I will probably get flamed by comp.sys.amiga.readers.die-hard for suggesting
the creation of three new groups, much less one. But think about it ... the
bandwidth is very high in this group and new groups would provide the mechanism
for evening out the traffic and making interest areas manageable. Again, this
concept is based not on a spur-of-the-moment idea for group creation, but after
observing the message patterns on the net for several weeks (please note that
this is an informal observation, but I will be happy to verify it if challenged
on it).
In regard to some of the other suggestions ... putting "GAME" in the subject
line won't work -- people just won't follow that suggestion. Besides, if
everyone ends up putting their keyword for their particular message in the
subject line, isn't this effectively the same as creating a new group?
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and ideas expressed here are just that -- opinions
and ideas. As with all other open-minded and non-omniscient and
non-omnipresent individuals, I'm prone to error in my views -- prove me wrong
before you flame me for my beliefs.
Whew! Been wanting to say that for a while.
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)don@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Donald R Lloyd) (12/14/89)
And of course, once Commodore's UNIX finally gets here, we'll
probably need a comp.unix.amix newsgroup.
--
Gibberish .sig for sale or lease.
is spoken Contact don@vax1.acs.udel.edu for more information.
here. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault.ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) (12/15/89)
This is mostly to set followups to news.groups so this discussion won't float in comp.sys.amiga forever but I do have something to contribute. In article <6073@nigel.udel.EDU> peterson@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J. Peterson) writes: > comp.sys.amiga.tech -- Same as the current group, which is for highly > technical postings regarding hardware and AmigaDOS (and Amix as > well hopefully! 8-) Personally, I think Amix should be set aside from AmigaDos (which should be comp.os.amiga by all rights). comp.unix.amix makes sense to me. Currently there are a lot of messages in comp.sys.amiga. I have a kill file that only keeps those messages with the words AMIX or UNIX in them to save time myself a lot of grief. I see: comp.sys.amiga # The system noise group comp.sys.amiga.tech # Hacking the system comp.os.amiga OR comp.os.amigados # AmigaDos questions comp.unix.amix # Amix questions and remove crossposting rights between these three groups :-). Pax, Keith -- ag@amix.commodore.com Keith Gabryelski ...!cbmvax!amix!ag
filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) (12/15/89)
In article <6073@nigel.udel.EDU> Eric J. Peterson writes: >Here is a proposed division of the current C.S.A* group ... > comp.sys.amiga -- For miscelaneous or other short postings [...] > comp.sys.amiga.tech -- Same as the current group [...] > comp.sys.amiga.hardware -- [...] > comp.sys.amiga.art -- [...] > comp.sys.amiga.questions -- Similar to comp.unix.questions [...] I don't think it's necessary to break the group up into that many pieces, yet, and I think it would be fairly difficult and flame-festish to get that many groups approved through the newsgroup creation mechanism (voting by the net at large). I read the last 100 articles locally spooled to comp.sys.amiga and decided whether they would be more appropriate for a .hardware group, a .games group, a .art group, or would not fit any of those categories. The 100 articles totalled 183K. 24 articles totalling 56K would belong in a .hardware group; 10 totalling 23K would fit .games, and 13 totalling 21K would fit .art: category art size art% size% --------- --- ---- ---- ----- .hardware 24 56 24 31 .games 10 23 10 12 .art 13 21 13 11 other 53 83 53 45 This makes comp.sys.amiga.hardware look like a very good idea -- offloading 30% of comp.sys.amiga's traffic. A group combining games and art (.rec?) would take another 20%. Separate groups for games and art don't appear justified at the moment. Anyone want to sponsor a .hardware vote? Bela Lubkin * * // filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us CI$: 73047,1112 (slow) @ * * // belal@sco.com ..ucbvax!ucscc!{gorn!filbo,sco!belal} R Pentomino * \X/ Filbo @ Pyrzqxgl +408-476-4633 and XBBS +408-476-4945
armhold@topaz.rutgers.edu (George Armhold) (12/16/89)
Yes, let's see a c.s.a.hardware happen. -George
ms361@leah.Albany.Edu (Mark Steinberger) (12/16/89)
In article <Dec.15.18.02.38.1989.399@topaz.rutgers.edu>, armhold@topaz.rutgers.edu (George Armhold) writes: > Yes, let's see a c.s.a.hardware happen. Is anyone taking votes yet? If so, please add mine to a "yes" for comp.sys.amiga.hardware. --Mark
filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) (12/17/89)
In article <2297@leah.Albany.Edu> Mark Steinberger writes: >Is anyone taking votes yet? If so, please add mine to a "yes" for >comp.sys.amiga.hardware. No, this is not how it works. Usenet rules require a formal discussion period (which cannot yet be considered to have begun) of at least two weeks, followed by formal voting. Since nobody else seems to be doing so, and since there does not seem to be any objection to the idea, I will make a formal call for discussion of comp.sys.amiga.hardware later today, Sunday, or Monday. Please do NOT send votes at this time; the rules do not allow premature votes to be counted. Bela Lubkin * * // filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us CI$: 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
donw@zehntel.zehntel.com (Don White) (12/19/89)
In article <103.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us> filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) writes: >In article <6073@nigel.udel.EDU> Eric J. Peterson writes: >>Here is a proposed division of the current C.S.A* group ... In case anyone is curious, of the last 400 articles at my site, there were 40 articles concerning splitting of comp.sys.amiga. There were 8 postings about games. In other words, we have created five times the problem by all this discussion. Maybe we could get better mileage with what we have by trying the KISS rule. (Keep It Short and Simple. What were you thinking?) Don White Box 271177 Concord, CA. 94527-1177 zehntel!donw
mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) (12/20/89)
[]
I'd be strongly in favor of comp.sys.amiga.mike myself. It has a nice
ring to it.
*** mike smithwick ***
"When I was 18 I joined the centrifigal Air-force"
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]migh@cuuxb.ATT.COM (~XT6561110~Mike Hall~C24~M26a~6029~) (12/21/89)
> I'd be strongly in favor of comp.sys.amiga.mike myself. It has a nice > ring to it. > *** mike smithwick *** I'll second that motion. Have a good holiday season, everyone! (Keep warm!) Mike Hall att!cuuxb!migh migh@cuuxb.att.com