peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/20/90)
In article ... jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > In article ... peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >I think it might be a good idea to move these small-machine groups to a > >new comp.micro second-level hierarchy. > Better still, I think it would be a good idea to move these small-machine > groups to a new first-level hierarchy so I can quit carrying them. Who says you can't quit carrying them anyway? Go ahead and drop them right now. I'm sure that putting !comp.binaries in your sys file will save you gobs of wasted space. I mean, really, nobody is *forced* to get all of any hierarchy, even comp, and whether or not you like small machines they *are* reasonable comp groups. It's obvious that some work needs to be done on the top level of the hierarchy, but is this the place? How about a 'humanities' or 'technical' set of groups? -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (02/20/90)
In article <RMV15Z8xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Who says you can't quit carrying them anyway? Go ahead and drop them >right now. I'm sure that putting !comp.binaries in your sys file will >save you gobs of wasted space. Yes, and that was done several weeks ago. However, that still leaves comp.sys.<pc's>, comp.protocol.<pc's>, comp.os.<pc's>, etc. Putting !<all.pc's> into a sys file where appropriate may win me the "Most Obfuscated sys File Entry", not to mention not winning me the admiration of my newsfeed - the sys file is processed for every article processed by inews ... Having everything go into "junk" is also a Bad Idea. On the other hand, putting all the PC traffic in its own tree would make it easier for PC USENET sites to carry only the relevant techincal traffic. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/21/90)
In article <17998@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > On the other hand, putting all the PC traffic in its own tree would > make it easier for PC USENET sites to carry only the relevant techincal > traffic. Agreed, there's a lot to be said for putting all the micro groups under one hierararchy. I just don't see why that hierarchy can't go under comp. comp.pc comp.pc.ibm comp.pc.ibm.sources comp.pc.ibm.binaries comp.pc.ibm.programmer ... and so on, with equivalents for .mac, .amiga, .apple2, .etc... -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'