dks@shumv1.uucp (D. K. Smith) (02/08/90)
In article <38423@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >something on the order of: > > comp.sys.mac.help > comp.sys.mac.wanted > comp.sys.mac.d (comp.sys.mac.flame? c.s.m.editorials?) > Sounds good! >What we need to look >for is something that's easy for beginners to understand and will be mostly >used by most people most of the time. Yes, I agree... My two sense for the split is as follows: c.s.m.wanted We do not want to encourage soliciting c.s.m.user This general topic group replaces c.s.m. Here we can initiate most any discussion. However it would be encouraged that those topics specifically related to "wanted", "programming", "hardware", or "software" not be posted here. You may think this leaves nothing... maybe not. There are many general questions that are asked that do not produce discussion threads. If the probability of a thread does exist then the disussion could be moved to the approriate group. In the case of discussions like "Apple in the 90's" or the "GUI Wars" and other religious banterings... they would be at home in this group since those discussions could be of interest to all Mac users. Help requests could be serviced here as well. c.s.m.software After all, isn't this what makes the Mac, a Mac! Single posts on applications or threads of disussions on the best DA's, utilities, etc could go on here. I thought about calling this group "app" however it is to confining. "Software" captures the essence of what most folks consider the 'stuff' that runs on their Macs. Not everyone on the net is a programmer, etc. c.s.m.hardware c.s.m.programmer These would keep their original charter. Well what do youse guys (females, as well as, males) thinks?!? One big issue is to encourage the Mac community to refrain from cross-posting in the comp.sys.mac newsfroups. It really is unnecessary. Most MacEvagelists read all the groups... (I would assume) I would hate to miss something! dk smith ------------------------------------------------------------------------ dks@shumv1.ncsu.edu | ude.uscn.1vmuhs@skd -my opinions reflect my opinions. | .snoinipo ym tcelfer snoinipo ym- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/08/90)
dks@shumv1.uucp (D. K. Smith) writes: >In article <38423@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > c.s.m.wanted We do not want to encourage soliciting We get a lot of soliciting anyway. I don't think it's as much a matter of soliciting as dealing with a reality. A place for "I want a rpogram that does" or "I didn't get part 3 of..." or whatever. You're not going to make it go away, I doubt you'll encourage more of it by segmenting it out, either. People looking for things or information, in fact, is arguably one of the more important things the net does. > c.s.m.user This general topic group replaces c.s.m. I think the group would be ambiguous. I don't think it's obvious what is and isn't a user question (especially as compared to .software below, for instance. The end result would be a group with a high percentage of cross-postings, which isn't good). > c.s.m.software After all, isn't this what makes the Mac, a Mac! unlike .hardware, I find .software ambiguous as well -- there are so many pieces it entails that it might encourage cross-posting as well. I think .app is better simply because it covers a pretty broad but specific area. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] Rumour has it that Larry Wall, author of RN, is a finalist in the race for the Nobel Peace Prize for his invention of the kill file.
geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (02/09/90)
A couple of people in this thread have suggested comp.sys.mac.software.
I'm not too sure about this.
If we follow these proposals, we'd have comp.sys.mac.hardware and
comp.sys.mac.software. That seems to cover everything. What's left for
comp.sys.mac.misc? I don't see how it would solve anything.
The more I think about it, the more I like comp.sys.mac.misc and
comp.sys.mac.talk with a monthly ``Welcome'' posting to explain the
groups and answer a few of the more common questions.
I'll draft something up and post it to comp.sys.mac in the near future
for people to comment on. We'll see if we can get this going.
--
Geoff Allen \ The good thing about standards is there
{uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff \ are so many to choose from.
ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff \ -- Jean-Louis Gassee, Apple Computerdks@shumv1.uucp (D. K. Smith) (02/09/90)
In article <38443@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >dks@shumv1.uucp (D. K. Smith) writes: > >>In article <38423@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >> c.s.m.wanted We do not want to encourage soliciting > >We get a lot of soliciting anyway. I don't think it's as much a matter of >soliciting as dealing with a reality. A place for "I want a rpogram that >does" or "I didn't get part 3 of..." or whatever. You're not going to make >it go away, I doubt you'll encourage more of it by segmenting it out, either. > >People looking for things or information, in fact, is arguably one of the >more important things the net does. I was not clear... I agree that an important function of the net is the request and receipt of information. What I meant by saying, "We do not want to encourage soliciting" is that of solicting stuff for sale, etc. Solicitations for help or "I got this source... who wants it" are mucho encouraged, of course. For sale,on the other hand... nah-uh! > >> c.s.m.user This general topic group replaces c.s.m. > >I think the group would be ambiguous. I don't think it's obvious what is and >isn't a user question (especially as compared to .software below, for >instance. The end result would be a group with a high percentage of >cross-postings, which isn't good). Ok... I will concede on this one. Maybe another name for the .general group would be appropriate. I do however feel that this would be the place for long discussion threads like the Apple of the '90's, GUI improvements, and the future thread "Apple without Gasse...The Cause and the Affect". > >> c.s.m.software After all, isn't this what makes the Mac, a Mac! > >unlike .hardware, I find .software ambiguous as well -- there are so many >pieces it entails that it might encourage cross-posting as well. I think >.app is better simply because it covers a pretty broad but specific area. > I do not feel that .software is ambiguous. To me there is a very definite line of demarcation between hw and sw. This could be the forum for everything from viruses (which affects soft- ware), to application sw questions/answers... threads about inits, DAs, cdevs, etc could occur here. If I was a newcomer to the Mac I would recognize .software as the forum for my question about MS Word. I could not say the same thing for .app. Do you agree? >Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] dk "we beat Carolina at Carolina last night" smith ------------------------------------------------------------------------ dks@shumv1.ncsu.edu | ude.uscn.1vmuhs@skd -my opinions reflect my opinions. | .snoinipo ym tcelfer snoinipo ym- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) (02/10/90)
The one change with perhaps the largest effect would be to
RENAME c.s.m to c.s.m.misc
As it is, there is the REAL mac group, and then some subgroups
for specialists, hardware nerds, and other weirdos. Obviously
a question about hard disks goes in the REAL mac group, because
you want the normal people to answer the question.
More seriously, creating a .misc group would encourage people
(or at least me) to look for the more specific group first, whereas
the name c.s.m sounds appropriate for any and all questions.
I'd also like to see c.s.m.applications (not just .app -- if we can
spell out hypercard we can spell out applications, and the clarity
will do us good) or c.s.m.software, the former if we DON'T include
system/finder type questions, the latter if we do.
Eliminating c.s.m in favor of c.s.m.misc is what will cut down
the cross posting and mis-posting, more subgroups won't.
Let's do this first!
-Dan Veditz {uunet,cepu}!ashtate!dveditz
dveditz@ashtate.A-T.comjmm@eci386.uucp (John Macdonald) (02/10/90)
In article <1990Feb8.201541.24403@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> dks@shumv1.ncsu.edu (D. K. Smith) writes: -> In article <38443@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: -> >dks@shumv1.uucp (D. K. Smith) writes: -> > -> >>In article <38423@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: DS2:> dks@shumv1.ncsu.edu (D. K. Smith) CR :> > chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) DS1:> >> dks@shumv1.uucp (D. K. Smith) writes: DS1:> >> c.s.m.user This general topic group replaces c.s.m. CR :> >I think the group would be ambiguous. I don't think it's obvious what is and CR :> >isn't a user question (especially as compared to .software below, for CR :> >instance. The end result would be a group with a high percentage of CR :> >cross-postings, which isn't good). DS2:> Ok... I will concede on this one. Maybe another name for DS2:> the .general group would be appropriate. I do however DS2:> feel that this would be the place for long discussion DS2:> threads like the Apple of the '90's, GUI improvements, DS2:> and the future thread "Apple without Gasse...The Cause DS2:> and the Affect". DS1:> >> c.s.m.software After all, isn't this what makes the Mac, a Mac! CR :> >unlike .hardware, I find .software ambiguous as well -- there are so many CR :> >pieces it entails that it might encourage cross-posting as well. I think CR :> >.app is better simply because it covers a pretty broad but specific area. DS2:> I do not feel that .software is ambiguous. To me there is a DS2:> very definite line of demarcation between hw and sw. This could DS2:> be the forum for everything from viruses (which affects soft- DS2:> ware), to application sw questions/answers... threads about DS2:> inits, DAs, cdevs, etc could occur here. If I was a newcomer DS2:> to the Mac I would recognize .software as the forum for my DS2:> question about MS Word. I could not say the same thing for DS2:> .app. Do you agree? The ambiguity is not between sw and hw, but between sw and the rest of the current c.s.m stuff (hw is already broken out of c.s.m). The ambiguity is that just about everything currently in c.s.m could be considered (by someone at least) to be related to software. Most of the topics you suggested above for the misc group (I think c.s.m.misc is better than c.s.m.general because it is consistent with the rest of the news hierarchy) would likely be considered appropriate for c.s.m.sw - GUI certainly is software, the Apple of the 90's is software and hardware, Gassee is not software. I think it would be better to use the name c.s.m.applications or c.s.m.programs instead of c.s.m.app to make it clear what the group was about for newusers. The difficulty here is finding a topic to break out that has a clear bound. A group for applications would have a clear separation point that most people would be able to agree whether a discussion belonged there. It would also be easily further sub-divided in the future, either by specific products, or (my preference) by applications areas (spreadsheet, wordprocessing, database, communications, graphics, publishing, ...) In that vein, it might be worth considering moving c.s.m.hypercard into c.s.m.applications.hypercard. Although there may be a debate about whether hypercard is an application or part of the system, you can certainly do a lot of things with in the same way you might do them in a programmable application. Another possible sub-group might by c.s.m.system for discussion of finder, multi-finder, System 7.0, DAs, INITs, DRVRs, Royal fonts, etc. (This might also be a good group to move hypercard into...) -- Algol 60 was an improvment on most | John Macdonald of its successors - C.A.R. Hoare | jmm@eci386
dks@shumv1.uucp (D. K. Smith) (02/11/90)
In article <423@dbase.A-T.COM> dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) writes: >More seriously, creating a .misc group would encourage people >(or at least me) to look for the more specific group first, whereas >the name c.s.m sounds appropriate for any and all questions. This seems to be a good approach to the newsgoups issue. > >I'd also like to see c.s.m.applications (not just .app -- if we can >spell out hypercard we can spell out applications, and the clarity >will do us good) or c.s.m.software, the former if we DON'T include >system/finder type questions, the latter if we do. Spelling it out WILL be helpful for those that are new to the group. > >Eliminating c.s.m in favor of c.s.m.misc is what will cut down >the cross posting and mis-posting, more subgroups won't. >Let's do this first! >-Dan Veditz {uunet,cepu}!ashtate!dveditz > dveditz@ashtate.A-T.com I agree (for whatever for whatever it's worth??). I second the motion :-) After following (and participating) in this thread I have understood a little better about the psychology of group demarcation. Maybe future mac.groups would in fact include the .talk, etc. For now however, splitting "miscellaneous" discussions from the basic "using the mac" threads (which I presume/assume is the intent of the new group c.s.m.applications) would be a big help. My vote is for the following proposed changes: rename comp.sys.mac to comp.sys.mac.misc create comp.sys.mac.applications dk smith ------------------------------------------------------------------------ dks@shumv1.ncsu.edu | ude.uscn.1vmuhs@skd -my opinions reflect my opinions. | .snoinipo ym tcelfer snoinipo ym- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
mehl@cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl) (02/16/90)
jmm@eci386.uucp (John Macdonald) writes: | I think it would be better to use the name c.s.m.applications or | c.s.m.programs instead of c.s.m.app to make it clear what the group was | about for newusers. I confess that c.s.m.applications is clearer than c.s.m.app; however, Apple uses the term/program MacApp to mean Mac application to most people, so I don't think the shorter name is impossible to figure out. My only concern for using the unabbreviated name is that the extensions get too long. For example, comp.sys.mac.applications.text.fonts comp.sys.mac.applications.graphics.3d comp.sys.mac.applications.database.spreadsheets comp.sys.mac.applications.database.hypercard On the other hand, simply saying . . . comp.sys.mac.app.db.hypercard seems to make it clear enough to most that this group is about hypercard even with the "app" abbreviation. | A group for applications would have a clear separation point | that most people would be able to agree whether a discussion belonged | there. It would also be easily further sub-divided in the future, | either by specific products, or (my preference) by applications areas | (spreadsheet, wordprocessing, database, communications, graphics, | publishing, ...) Absolutely. Let's not, however, include system-oriented stuff like networking and communications in an application-oriented group. This belongs in c.s.m.os (or c.s.m.systems) | . . . it might be worth considering moving c.s.m.hypercard into | c.s.m.applications.hypercard. I like the idea of moving hypercard into the c.s.m.app.* hierarchy. Let's call it c.s.m.app.db.hypercard, then people will know "app.db" must mean "applications.database" if they already know what hypercard is. | Another possible sub-group might by c.s.m.system for discussion of | finder, multi-finder, System 7.0, DAs, INITs, DRVRs, Royal fonts, etc. I like, but let's create c.s.m.app... first. -- /\ Mark M Mehl, alias Superticker (Supertickler to some) <><> Internet: mehl@atanasoff.cs.IAstate.edu \/ UUCP: {{mailrus,umix}!sharkey,hplabs!hp-lsd,uunet}!atanasoff!mehl Disclaimer: You got to be kidding; who would want to claim anything I said?
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/17/90)
In article <638@dino.cs.iastate.edu> mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu writes
about a "comp.sys.mac.os"...
I suppose there might be some point to a comp.os.mac group, since there's
a comp.os.os2 which is no less hardware-dependent than MacOS.
--
_--_|\ 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?" `-_-'