freed@pixar.UUCP (freed) (01/16/90)
I do not know the exact procedure for this but could we divide up the comp.graphics newsgroups into perhaps... comp.graphics.fileFormats comp.graphics.2D comp.graphics.3D comp.graphics.imaging comp.graphics.requests etc... I am sure that there are many more (or better) possibilities for subdivision. I cannot possibly read comp.graphics anymore because I cannot filter out the repetitive dribble from the real graphics conversation. Help me please! Erik Freed UUCP:ucbvax!pixar!freed
thaw@pixar.UUCP (Tom Williams) (01/16/90)
freed@pixar.UUCP (freed) writes: >I do not know the exact procedure for this but could we >divide up the comp.graphics newsgroups into perhaps... >[] >comp.graphics.2D >comp.graphics.3D >etc... >[] >I cannot possibly read comp.graphics anymore because I cannot >filter out the repetitive dribble from the real graphics conversation. >Help me please! > Erik Freed UUCP:ucbvax!pixar!freed I'll second (and third..) this!!!! I think the .2D and .3D extentions would help tremendously. -thaw- ---- Thomas Williams 'Life in Hell is suprisingly cold' PIXAR {ucbvax|sun}!pixar!thaw ---- PS: reposted because inews is braindead.
markv@gauss.Princeton.EDU (Mark VandeWettering) (01/16/90)
In article <8606@pixar.UUCP> thaw@pixar.UUCP (Tom Williams) writes: >>I do not know the exact procedure for this but could we >>divide up the comp.graphics newsgroups into perhaps... I would like to see comp.graphics split as well. It seems that there are many different kinds of graphics users, and creating different newsgroups would help everyone get the kind of appropriate response they need. comp.graphics.formats is an excellent idea, to file the plethora of postings about transferring images between different formats. I don't know if comp.graphics.2d and comp.graphics.3d are as good of an idea, the breaking out of the two seems slightly wierd. How 'bout the formation of a sources group? comp.sources.graphics? Any body believe that would be useful. I would also like to see a comp.graphics.research group as well, that emphasized more esoteric and research applications. Let the open debate begin! Mark VandeWettering
spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) (01/17/90)
In article <12964@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> markv@gauss.Princeton.EDU (Mark VandeWettering) writes: >comp.graphics.formats is an excellent idea, to file the plethora of postings >about transferring images between different formats. Good idea, but the name seems a little ambiguous to me. Maybe we need comp.graphics.gif, comp.graphics.targa, etc??? Or is that slicing it too thin? >I don't know if comp.graphics.2d and comp.graphics.3d are as good of an >idea, the breaking out of the two seems slightly wierd. Agreed. >How 'bout the formation of a sources group? comp.sources.graphics? Any >body believe that would be useful. Yes! Yea and verily!! >I would also like to see a comp.graphics.research group as well, that >emphasized more esoteric and research applications. Again, I like it but am somewhat ambivalent about the name, though I can't really say that I can think of a better title, myself. >Let the open debate begin! ... It just did... :-) spl (the p stands for personally, I think we should start with comp.graphics.lineprinter...) -- Steve Lamont, sciViGuy (919) 248-1120 EMail: spl@ncsc.org NCSC, Box 12732, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 "That's People's Commissioner Tirebiter -- and NOBODY'S sweetheart!" - F. Scott Firesign
jonb@vector.Dallas.TX.US (Jon Buller) (01/17/90)
freed@pixar.UUCP (freed) writes: >I do not know the exact procedure for this but could we >divide up the comp.graphics newsgroups into perhaps... [possible list of groups deleted] >I cannot possibly read comp.graphics anymore because I cannot >filter out the repetitive dribble from the real graphics conversation. >Help me please! > Erik Freed UUCP:ucbvax!pixar!freed Yes, NO kidding. I am tired of hearing requests for file format X or about VGA mode Y. Can't the IBM people at least keep their stuff in comp.sys.ibm? It's not that I don't think there is a place for that, it's just that I don't want to hear it most of the time. (Esp. the IBM video stuff, I won't flame your PC if you don't flame my Mac. When I want to know how to drive my monitor in some unusual way I ask comp.sys.mac.programmer NOT comp.graphics hint, hint). Anyway, I would like to see the split, as I prefer seeing 3D rendering ala RenderMan, Wavefront, etc. and stuff like the MTV ray tracer. (Thanks Mark) Comp.graphics.sources would be nice, but would it ever be heard from? Just food for thought from, --------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Buller jonb@vector.dallas.tx.us ..!texbell!vector!jonb FROM Fortune IMPORT Quote; FROM Lawyers IMPORT Disclaimer; -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Buller jonb@vector.dallas.tx.us ..!texbell!vector!jonb FROM Fortune IMPORT Quote; FROM Lawyers IMPORT Disclaimer;
jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi (Juri Munkki) (01/17/90)
In article <8600@pixar.UUCP> freed@pixar.UUCP (freed) writes: >comp.graphics.fileFormats >comp.graphics.2D >comp.graphics.3D >comp.graphics.imaging >comp.graphics.requests >etc... Comp.graphics.formats would be useful, since most of the GIF, TIFF and PC/Mac paint/draw file format questions could go there. I also think that comp.graphics.hardware would be useful group, since that would be appropriate for all those frame buffer, video signal conversion and printer questions. Another choice would be to leave comp.graphics for general questions and create comp.graphics.software or comp.graphics.algorithms. This would solve the problem that arises when people do not know of or do not trust the new [hardware/formats] groups and post to the old group anyway. _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._ | Juri Munkki jmunkki@hut.fi jmunkki@fingate.bitnet I Want Ne | | Helsinki University of Technology Computing Centre My Own XT | ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
darragh@maths.tcd.ie (Darragh Delaney) (01/17/90)
sounds like a good proposal to me though let's not get carried
away with too many groups how about
comp.graphics.hardware
comp.graphics.software
comp.graphics.techniques
comp.graphics.sources
comp.grapics (left as a general talk group)
I reckon that should just about cover everything or at least relieve
the situation until we have to form
comp.graphics.software.libraries.commercial.veryintricateandtemprentalcpus
ciao
Darragh.graham@advsys.UUCP (Graham Underwood) (01/17/90)
In article <8600@pixar.UUCP> freed@pixar.UUCP (freed) writes: >I do not know the exact procedure for this but could we >divide up the comp.graphics newsgroups into perhaps... Seconded. How about splitting at the top level into comp.graphics.raster comp.graphics.vector This will go a long way to filtering out stuff that I am not interested in. We could then have two separate discussions on how to subdivide further. e.g. comp.graphics.raster.formats etc. Graham. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- graham@advent.co.uk ..!ukc!advsys!graham --------------------------------------------------------------------------
jonb@vector.Dallas.TX.US (Jon Buller) (01/18/90)
I would like to apologize for the posting I made yesterday. I saw it this morning, and was shocked that I could write so much and say so little, without making any sense at all either. If you bothered to read that ... THING (well, it sure wasn't a post...), you probably could guess that I would like to see comp.graphics split, but for now, probably only into comp.graphics.formats or some such group. Once again, oops and sorry, I won't do it again. BTW, I didn't mean to flame anyone either. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Buller jonb@vector.dallas.tx.us ..!texbell!vector!jonb FROM Fortune IMPORT Quote; FROM Lawyers IMPORT Disclaimer;
pmartz@bambam.UUCP (Paul Martz) (01/18/90)
From article <12964@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> (Mark VandeWettering) we have: > In article <8606@pixar.UUCP> thaw@pixar.UUCP (Tom Williams) writes: > >>I do not know the exact procedure for this but could we > >>divide up the comp.graphics newsgroups into perhaps... > ... > comp.graphics.formats is an excellent idea, to file the plethora of postings > about transferring images between different formats. > > I don't know if comp.graphics.2d and comp.graphics.3d are as good of an > idea, the breaking out of the two seems slightly wierd. > > How 'bout the formation of a sources group? comp.sources.graphics? Any > body believe that would be useful. > > I would also like to see a comp.graphics.research group as well, that > emphasized more esoteric and research applications. > You all read my mind; I was going to post something like this today as well. Mark's suggestions are all excellent. I envisoned the break-up along the same lines, something like: comp.graphics.sources (source listings) comp.graphics.hardware (hardware, of course) comp.graphics.wizards (research / algorithms / theoretical) comp.graphics.formats (hpgl, gif, ad nauseum) comp.graphics.misc (catch all) Having this all in one group is very annoying to me and others. This break up is long overdue. -Paul {decwrl,utah-cs}!esunix!"pmartz@bambam" "My .signature is available for rent for a small monthly fee!"