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."
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