chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (05/02/90)
[Followups to news.groups, where this group-naming discussion belongs.] According to wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson): >Why not change [proposed biz.sco] into something like > > comp.vendors.sco > >Maybe, then, the best of both worlds can be served. "We" users don't want the "best of both worlds". The mainstream Usenet is maintained for the benefit of users, not vendors. Changes to Usenet should be made with the users' interests in mind[*]. If the vendors want vendor-specific groups, then they can create all they want... on the biznet. But not in comp.all. ([*]The people that own the systems over which Usenet travels, and the administrators of those systems, are the people with the real *power*. Nevertheless, the benefit of users is right up there in the top five motivations for doing anything on Usenet.) >For the most part many of these [new] users are not looking >for information under hardware architectures but are looking for information >under vendors. Because, simply, that's the way they describe their system >--- SCO XENIX, SCO UNIX, SCO ODT. Quite right. And interaction with the Usenet community will make these novices recognize that the vendor's name *isn't* as important as they may think. Let's not pander to the nameplate-is-everything mentality that the marketdroids want us to buy. Just say "No" to vendor newsgroups. -- Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT <chip%tct@ateng.com>, <uunet!ateng!tct!chip>