chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/07/90)
rene@ascom.uucp (Rene Bach) writes: >Could please someonw devise a sub-group organization for this newsgroup ? > .finder .app .init etc ... ? Sounds like it might be time to consider splitting up c.s.m again. Since I've administered it before, I'll take up the gauntlet and start the discussion here. Is it time to split comp.sys.mac? If so, how? What groups would be useful to have? (I haven't had a chance to go look at message traffic, so I don't have a list of recommendations yet. Besides, I'd like to get feedback from the group before putting forth my own ideas). Please note I'm shifting followups to news.groups. Let's discuss it there. -- 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.
jpb@umbio.miami.edu (Joe Block) (02/07/90)
How about splitting it into .app, .startup (CDEVs & INITs), .os, .peripherals, .das, .viruses, and .bugs? -- Joe Block jpb@umbio.miami.edu There was a young poet named Dan, whose poetry would never scan, when told this was so, He said, Yes I know, It's because I try to fit every possible sylable into the last line that I can.
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/07/90)
In article <1603@umigw.MIAMI.EDU>, jpb@umbio.miami.edu (Joe Block) writes: > How about splitting it into .app, .startup (CDEVs & INITs), .os, .peripherals, > .das, .viruses, and .bugs? The problem is you don't want to just create groups -- if the groups aren't properly named (based on what people are talking about) they don't relieve the pressure (on apple.com, c.s.m seems to be about 100 messages a day) because they aren't used.... A few thoughts and some data on the possibility of splitting comp.sys.mac. The first thing I checked was to see what percentage of messages in c.s.m were cross-postings to other, existing c.s.m subgroups. If you look at the bottom of the message, you'll see the data, which shows it's a pretty small number. One other thing I looked at was whether people were using c.s.m *instead* of an existing sub-group. There seems to be a fair amount of this in the case of c.s.m.hardware (I don't have firm data on this, but scanning the subject lines showed a much larger number than the cross-posting would account for, but not enough for me to think it outrageous. Some education on this issue might help, but not enough to fix the overload in c.s.m. The bottom line (not surprising): c.s.m has outgrown itself again. It's not a case of excessive crossposting or not using the appropriate groups. Which implies that one or more groups are necessary to help split off some of the volume. Here's my first thoughts having gone through the last 30 dayts of comp.sys.mac. First, to create comp.sys.mac.misc, with the eventual idea of rmgrouping comp.sys.mac -- this will bring the c.s.m hierarchy into line with the 'standard' usenet naming scheme. Other sub-groups that came to mind while trying to sort and identify messages based on subject lines: comp.sys.mac.d -- discussions of mac and apple (editorializing, yelling about apple warranties, etc). .forsale -- intuitively obvious, I hope .futures -- talk about apple futures: System 7.0, Hypercard 2.0, what apple ought to be doing (as opposed to .d, where you yell at Apple for what it hasn't done). .os -- system software discussions .wanted -- a place to post requests for stuff or information. .applications -- talk about applications .inits -- talk about inits .interface -- talk about the MacOS interface, use/abuse. Obviously, some of these cross over somewhat (.d, .futures and .interface all seem to cover parts of current discussions, for instance). Others we might not want to encourage (.forsale). things like .inits I'm not convinced would have enough volume to really make a difference in c.s.m long-term (last time I looked, a large part of the traffic was about microsoft, this time, there's VERY little. my guess is the current discussions about INITs will likely wane in the same way). My preferences right now would be: comp.sys.mac.misc comp.sys.mac.d comp.sys.mac.wanted comp.sys.mac.futures and from there, I'm not sure I care or that it'd be work doing. Here's some random data that may or may not be interesting. 2377 messages 1375 replies (57%) 1136 different topics Topics with the most responses: #msgs subject line 42 Priority scheme for comp.sys.mac.binaries? 29 What I'd like to see in the AppleShare of the 90's 27 Low-Cost Macintosh 26 MacWorld's Phony Offers 25 A call for "3D look" (a la Next) interface guidelines from Apple 17 Macintosh Yellow Pages 16 Backup Utility Recommendations... 14 Rolex watch for sale 13 Windows 3.0: Coming of age 12 no 6.0.4 upgarde path 12 Mac only has 90-day warranty 12 Hiding background layers in MultiFinder 11 ShortCut vs. Boomerang: Opinions? 11 MIP rating for the Mac II 11 FastPath vs. GatorBox 11 Don't buy SuperLaserSpool (or anything from SuperMac) 11 ATM 10 Text file madness: diagnosis & prescription. 10 Changing Boot "Welcome" message 103 different cross-posting combinations [note: some duplicates, i.e. c.s.m,c.s.m.hardware and c.s.m.hw,c.s.m counted twice] 1136 messages not cross posted. Most common cross-postings (# cross-postings > 10) 94 comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer 71 comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.hardware 43 comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac 13 comp.sys.mac,comp.protocols.appletalk 12 comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.hypercard -- 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.
mehl@cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl) (02/07/90)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >My preferences right now would be: >comp.sys.mac.misc >comp.sys.mac.d >comp.sys.mac.wanted >comp.sys.mac.futures Well, let me suggest a different breakdown: comp.sys.mac.app (for discussion of Mac applications) comp.sys.mac.os (for discussion of system and networking issues) Now let's examine how well they fit the article profile of comp.sys.mac posted by Chuq: > Topics with the most responses: > #msgs subject line c.s.mac >42 Priority scheme for comp.sys.mac.binaries? c.s.m.os >29 What I'd like to see in the AppleShare of the 90's c.s.mac >27 Low-Cost Macintosh c.s.mac >26 MacWorld's Phony Offers c.s.m.os >25 A call for "3D look" interface guidelines from Apple c.s.m.app >17 Macintosh Yellow Pages c.s.m.app >16 Backup Utility Recommendations... misc.forsale >14 Rolex watch for sale c.s.m.app >13 Windows 3.0: Coming of age c.s.m.os >12 no 6.0.4 upgarde path c.s.mac >12 Mac only has 90-day warranty c.s.m.os >12 Hiding background layers in MultiFinder c.s.m.app >11 ShortCut vs. Boomerang: Opinions? c.s.mac >11 MIP rating for the Mac II c.s.m.app?>11 FastPath vs. GatorBox c.s.m.os? >11 Don't buy SuperLaserSpool (or anything from SuperMac) c.s.m.app >11 ATM c.s.m.app >10 Text file madness: diagnosis & prescription. c.s.m.os >10 Changing Boot "Welcome" message Well, that breakdown just about divides out most of the traffic in what is now comp.sys.mac fairly well. In making the above breakdown, some issues came into mind. "Exactly what are the system and networking articles that should be posted to comp.sys.mac.os instead of c.s.mac or c.s.m.app?" The charter for comp.sys.mac.os needs to be well defined to prevent confusion. I would, for example, consider cDEV's and INIT's, and spoolers to be system issues, but would everyone else? I would even consider viruses to be systems issues (afterall when a main-frame gets a virus, the systems people fix it), but would others consider placing a discussion on viruses in comp.sys.mac.os? I think the charter for c.s.m.os is going to be tricky to write and confusing for non-computer oriented people to follow. Nevertheless, I'm for the c.s.m.os and c.s.m.app breakdown. When do we get started? -- /\ 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?
francis@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis) (02/08/90)
I have seen a couple of postings now suggesting large numbers of new c.s.m groups. Maybe I'm nuts, but perhaps we should try a relatively simple solution. I recommend breaking comp.sys.mac into comp.sys.mac.software questions regarding mac software, parallels existing group c.s.m.hardware. comp.sys.mac.misc discussions re: interfaces, Apple into the 90's, splitting c.b.m, etc. From what I've seen (and I've been reading the group for quite a while, albeit sporadically up until the past month or so), this would go a fair way towards accomplishing two goals: 1) division of the load -- I suspect that this comes as close as possible to splitting the current messages into two equal groups. 2) division of interest -- people who are interested in the miscellaneous discussions in the group can read them, people who want a more "business-like" Q&A approach to mac software questions get it minus the discussions. Of course, I admit the possibility that this is relatively short-sighted, and would still result in tow groups with a fairly high amount of traffic. However, I hold that splitting things up much further gets us to the point where we are creating multiple groups were >90% of the readers of c.s.m.q would also read c.s.m.x. In other words, (yes, *please* use other words if you have them :-) people would wind up having to follow 2,3, or 4 groups instead of just one to get want they want. Of course, this is my *opinion*; I just think that we should add no more complexity than necessary. RDF -- R David Francis francis@cis.ohio-state.edu
kempf@tci.bell-atl.com (Cory Kempf) (02/08/90)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Sounds like it might be time to consider splitting up c.s.m again. Since >I've administered it before, I'll take up the gauntlet and start the >discussion here. It is past time to split c.s.m. I would recomend that we split it into about three groups: c.s.m.software: Comercial Software related discussion (between this and c.s.m.hw, everything should be covered) c.s.m.news: apple's politics, apple in the news, what the next new mac should be/do/have/etc. c.s.m: still. +C -- Cory Kempf Technology Concepts phone: (508) 443-7311 x341 uucp: {anywhere}!uunet!tci!kempf, kempf@tci.bell-atl.com DISCLAIMER: TCI is not responsible for my opinions, nor I for theirs
delaney@xn (John R. Delaney) (02/08/90)
I agree that the comp.sys.mac group seems to need splitting, but I am not sure that will really reduce the traffic in the group. We already see a number of messages in comp.sys.mac which belong IMHO else, e.g., Mac for sale notices (properly in <your locale>.forsale), questions about which disk drive to buy (properly in comp.sys.mac.hardware), questions about what compiler (properly in comp.sys.mac.programmer), and questions about Hypercard (properly in comp.sys.mac.hypercard). The more we split the basic group, the more of this leakage back we can expect. Unless the basic group is moderated. And I don't think that anyone would want that. But if we do split the basic group, I would like to see the following groups created: (please note I have given amusing names to some; better ones are needed if we get serious) comp.sys.mac.silly-bashing For all the "My Mac/PC/UNIX box can beat up your "Unix box/PC/Mac" traffic. I would include in this group any and everything about lawsuits also. comp.sys.mac.fonts There always seem to be questions about fonts, font-related tools like ATM, and abuses of fonts by applications like WORD with its fractional spacing problems. comp.sys.mac.diseases For alerts about virii, trojan horses, etc, questions about how virii work on Macs in specific, discussions of tools like DISINFECTANT, GATEKEEPER, etc. comp.sys.mac.help!!! For all those questions and comments about folders from hell, possible system/DA/INIT/CDEV/application incompatibilities, and how to spool Postscript output. comp.sys.mac.reviews For all questions about the worthwhileness of particular software products and vendors or request for information about particular classes of software, e.g., backup programs. I am sure others can think of more. John
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/08/90)
delaney@xn (John R. Delaney) writes: >I agree that the comp.sys.mac group seems to need splitting, but I am >not sure that will really reduce the traffic in the group. We already >see a number of messages in comp.sys.mac which belong IMHO else, e.g., >Mac for sale notices (properly in <your locale>.forsale), questions >about which disk drive to buy (properly in comp.sys.mac.hardware), >questions about what compiler (properly in comp.sys.mac.programmer), and >questions about Hypercard (properly in comp.sys.mac.hypercard). The more >we split the basic group, the more of this leakage back we can expect. Yes and no. Every time we have split the group, volume has dropped as messages move over. It's not 100%, but with intelligent planning we can make the system work. I agree the forsale messages should be elsewhere, but they won't go -- unless we create comp.sys.mac.forsale, which I think is a bad idea. >Unless the basic group is moderated. And I don't think that anyone would >want that. Moderation won't work. It'd basically imply that someone (or small group of someones) would have to moderate the entire subtree, passing messages back and forth among themselves to the right place. With the volume, it'd be horror for the moderator (take a look at comp.sys.sun for an idea of the problems and delays that can happen). An alternative, and something I was planning on suggesting once we had a better feel for where c.s.m was going, was to get a small group of people toghether and build an "introduction to c.s.m" document that could be posted on a monthly basis to introduce people to the hierarchy and how to use it. Also, I hope, posting answers to common questions. That'll take up a good part of the need for moderation (I hope). I'm not really in favor of building a large number of new groups -- for one thing, the guidelines are based on building a group at a time, and I'm not sure whether we want to try for a multi-group proposal because I'm not sure that we could write up a reasonable, acceptable and non-controversial proposal. Something to research and look at. Besides, I don't think it's necessary. I think we can do it the way we always have -- with one or perhaps a few well-chosen names. I'm thinking 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?) any of those groups would split off a large piece of the traffic in c.s.m. Between adding the groups c.s.m.help and c.s.m.wanted and an introduction document, I think we can make c.s.m livable again for a while. I don't think that doing a lot of highly specific creations (.font, .spreadsheet, .wordproc, .init, .cdev, etc) is a good idea, because I think that'll be more likely to cause cross-posting than building gerneral, independent groupings with a broad topic range. Remember, nothing we do will get us 100% effectiveness. 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. -- 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) (02/08/90)
We definitely need to split comp.sys.mac. Here are some of my thoughts on the subject. chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Here's my first thoughts having gone through the last 30 dayts of >comp.sys.mac. First, to create comp.sys.mac.misc, with the eventual idea of >rmgrouping comp.sys.mac -- this will bring the c.s.m hierarchy into line >with the 'standard' usenet naming scheme. Sounds reasonable. >Other sub-groups that came to mind while trying to sort and identify >messages based on subject lines: > >comp.sys.mac.d -- discussions of mac and apple (editorializing, yelling > about apple warranties, etc). > .forsale -- intuitively obvious, I hope > .futures -- talk about apple futures: System 7.0, Hypercard 2.0, > what apple ought to be doing (as opposed to .d, > where you yell at Apple for what it hasn't done). > .os -- system software discussions > .wanted -- a place to post requests for stuff or information. > .applications -- talk about applications > .inits -- talk about inits > .interface -- talk about the MacOS interface, use/abuse. It seems to me that these various divisions can be put into two categories. ``Practical'' discussions, and ``philosophical'' discussions. Here's how I think Chuq's groups above divide up. Practical Philosophical --------- ------------- .forsale .d .os .futures .wanted .interface .applications .inits >My preferences right now would be: > >comp.sys.mac.misc >comp.sys.mac.d >comp.sys.mac.wanted >comp.sys.mac.futures > >and from there, I'm not sure I care or that it'd be work doing. I think that the .d and .futures could probably be combined, for now, into one ``philosophical'' group. I don't have any great ideas for a name; comp.sys.mac.talk (for talking about the Mac) comes to mind, but that might have the wrong connotation. So, I'd propose creating comp.sys.mac.misc and comp.sys.mac.talk, with the eventual plan of rmgrouping comp.sys.mac. Putting the messages Chuq listed into these two groups gives: > 42 Priority scheme for comp.sys.mac.binaries? .talk > 29 What I'd like to see in the AppleShare of the 90's .talk > 27 Low-Cost Macintosh .talk > 26 MacWorld's Phony Offers .talk > 25 A call for "3D look" (a la Next) interface guidelines from Apple .talk > 17 Macintosh Yellow Pages .misc > 16 Backup Utility Recommendations... .misc > 14 Rolex watch for sale Who knows? A poor guy screws up the Newsgroups: line and starts one of the bigger threads in the group. > 13 Windows 3.0: Coming of age .talk > 12 no 6.0.4 upgarde path .misc > 12 Mac only has 90-day warranty .talk > 12 Hiding background layers in MultiFinder .misc > 11 ShortCut vs. Boomerang: Opinions? .misc > 11 MIP rating for the Mac II .misc > 11 FastPath vs. GatorBox .misc > 11 Don't buy SuperLaserSpool (or anything from SuperMac) .misc > 11 ATM .misc > 10 Text file madness: diagnosis & prescription. .misc > 10 Changing Boot "Welcome" message .misc Hmmm... Maybe c.s.m.talk isn't so bad after all. Most of the more longwinded threads are .talk rather than .misc. As for cross-posting, > 94 comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer This seems to be one of the biggest abuses. Maybe a monthly ``Welcome to the Macintosh newsgroups'' (pun on the default StartUpScreen intended) posting that explains each group and its intended purpose would help? I'd be more than willing to put such a beast together. We could even include a discussion of comp.binaries.mac and answers to some frequently asked questions (``How do I download the binaries'' ``How do I print postscript to disk'' ...). > 71 comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.hardware I'd hope that this will go down as people become more aware of comp.sys.mac.hardware > 43 comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac A flame war that erupted recently. Not the norm. > 13 comp.sys.mac,comp.protocols.appletalk I would guess that this is people with AppleTalk questions that cross-post to c.s.m. ``just in case.'' > 12 comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.hypercard There is little reason for this one. Again, perhaps education could help. >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. Don't forget the `k' key, which more people should press before `F'! -- Geoff Allen \ I don't want to yield to fashion and {uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff \ make the Macintosh as ugly as OS/2 ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff \ --Jean-Louis Gassee, Apple Computer
sklein@cdp.UUCP (02/08/90)
I don't use a bunch of INITS, then use a bunch of Applications, then spend an hours working with system software. Nobody works that way. comp.sys.mac should be organized according to projects: comp.sys.mac.pub = publishing/word processing comp.sys.mac.graphics comp.sys.mac.comm comp.sys.mac.db Waddya' think?
ar4@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Piper Keairnes) (02/08/90)
I totally agree with the need to split comp.sys.mac. Unless someone has
an inordinate amount of time on his hands it would be very difficult to
keep up with the number of articles in comp.sys.mac.
Here are my suggestions for possible splits:
printing {PS questions, compatibility questions, spoolers,
batch jobs, printing devices}
software {bug reports, game hints, beta-wachouts, PD, shareware,
discussion of comp.mac.binaries}
reviews {new hardware and software including patches, updates,
non-commercial announcements, questions about the
"best-thing-for-the-job"}
flame {a place for those stupid Rolex watch follow-ups ;) }
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Piper | ar4@mace.cc.purdue.edu | General Consultant |
| Keairnes | Macintosh Specialist | Purdue Univ. Computing Center |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+gz@cambridge.apple.com (Gail Zacharias) (02/08/90)
In article <1688@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> delaney@xn (John R. Delaney) writes: >comp.sys.mac.fonts I like that. More generally, how about comp.sys.mac.desktop-publishing? All the suggested splits into general categories like "comp.sys.mac.inits" are useless. The only purpose of splitting off a subgroup is to allow people to NOT read it. Why would anybody NOT read "c.s.m.inits"?? I mean do you really care HOW your software goes about doing whatever it was you wanted it to do? Now c.s.m.fonts, that's definitely something one either does or doesn't care about. It would sure cut down on my c.s.m.* reading time... -- gz@cambridge.apple.com
randy@polecat.llnl.gov (Randy Futor) (02/09/90)
In article <1688@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> delaney@xn (John R. Delaney) writes: >I agree that the comp.sys.mac group seems to need splitting . . . >The more we split the basic group, the more of this leakage back we can expect. >Unless the basic group is moderated. And I don't think that anyone would >want that. Though Chuq seems to have backed off from his original suggestion, I think it's a fine one & deserves reiteration: let's prepare the way for rmgrouping c.s.m. altogether! I don't see a comp.lang on our system, no comp.os, no comp.mail; each of these is only a 2d level in a hierarchy that requires ( & receives ) further refine- ment to be useful. It seems more than reasonable to aim c.s.m in such a direc- tion. Proposals are already out there regarding what the appropriate 4th levels ought be & more will show up, I'm sure -- maybe we'll be able to agree on one before too many more meg of stuff we would otherwise prefer have been filtered roll across our screens . . . -- what say?? -- R randy@polecat.llnl.gov futor@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov
glf@sppy00.UUCP (Hill) (02/09/90)
In article <76758@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> RD Francis <francis@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >I have seen a couple of postings now suggesting large numbers of new c.s.m >groups. Maybe I'm nuts, but perhaps we should try a relatively simple >solution ... > I tend to agree. It seems that the smaller you make the sub-units, the more overlap you're likely to see. People will make their own individual decisions about where things "really" go (and so postings with similar topics will end up in a variety of sub-groups depending on personal preference). In this case, the sub-groups will loose their meanings, AND people who like to scan all the topics to get a broad view of Mac events will have to start following threads across all groups (Oh, what a tangled web we [would] weave ...) For the most part, discussions tend to center around specific issues, such as hardware, software (using products), getting help, etc. and general or philosophical issues such as future wishes, new Apple law suits, design considerations and the like. I'm not really suggesting that two groups is enough (or these two groups even), but it might be wise to keep the groups broad enough to be meaningful and easy to use. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Greg Feldman-Hill {seismo|cbosgd}!osu-cis!sppy00!glf -or- glf@sppy00.UUCP OCLC - Online Computer Library Center ... Dublin, Ohio "... blah blah blah ... nothing clever to say today ... blah blah blah ..."
mehl@cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl) (02/09/90)
I posted a followup to this article nearly two days ago, but I guess the news software must of ate it. Here we go again. chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >My preferences right now would be: >comp.sys.mac.misc >comp.sys.mac.d >comp.sys.mac.wanted >comp.sys.mac.futures Well, let me conservatively suggest: comp.sys.mac.app (for discussing Mac application programs) comp.sys.mac.os (for discussing operating sys and networking) Now let's see how these fit into the subject profile of comp.sys.mac that was posted by Chuq: >Topics with the most responses: > #msgs subject line c.s.mac 42 Priority scheme for comp.sys.mac.binaries? c.s.m.os 29 What I'd like to see in the AppleShare of the 90's c.s.mac 27 Low-Cost Macintosh c.s.mac 26 MacWorld's Phony Offers c.s.m.os 25 A call for "3D look" interface guidelines from Apple c.s.m.app 17 Macintosh Yellow Pages c.s.m.app 16 Backup Utility Recommendations... misc.forsale,misc.consumers 14 Rolex watch for sale c.s.m.app 13 Windows 3.0: Coming of age c.s.m.os 12 no 6.0.4 upgarde path c.s.m.hardware? 12 Mac only has 90-day warranty c.s.m.os 12 Hiding background layers in MultiFinder c.s.m.app 11 ShortCut vs. Boomerang: Opinions? c.s.mac 11 MIP rating for the Mac II c.s.m.os? 11 FastPath vs. GatorBox c.s.m.os? 11 Don't buy SuperLaserSpool (or anything from SuperMac) c.s.m.app 11 ATM c.s.m.app 10 Text file madness: diagnosis & prescription. c.s.m.os 10 Changing Boot "Welcome" message Well I think that splits up comp.sys.mac fairly evenly into three meaningful groups. I DON'T, however, think we should split comp.sys.mac up more than one group at a time. We need to make a single split, then observe how the traffic changes BEFORE we can recommend another. Let me recommend we start with comp.sys.mac.app (for discussion of all Mac application programs) This is a logical split for most news readers (the human type) because many readers are "only" interested in Mac applications--nothing else. This split allows them to unsubscribe to c.s.mac and only subscribe to c.s.mac.app to save them time, and that's really where it's at. I've heard people suggest comp.sys.mac.fonts for c.s.m.graphics. Well, if traffic in comp.sys.mac.app requires further splitting, we can later add . . . comp.sys.mac.app.text.fonts and comp.sys.mac.app.graphics but let's first get started with comp.sys.mac.app then see where we need to go from there. It's the "safe" thing to do. -- /\ 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?
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (02/10/90)
As quoted from <552@dino.cs.iastate.edu> by mehl@cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl): +--------------- | I posted a followup to this article nearly two days ago, but I guess | the news software must of ate it. Here we go again. | | chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: | >My preferences right now would be: | >comp.sys.mac.misc | >comp.sys.mac.d | >comp.sys.mac.wanted | >comp.sys.mac.futures | | Well, let me conservatively suggest: | comp.sys.mac.app (for discussing Mac application programs) | comp.sys.mac.os (for discussing operating sys and networking) +--------------- Unless it's all leakage/misposting from comp.protocols.appletalk, I suggest a newsgroup for network issues; not everyone uses or even needs AppleTalk. If such issues belong in c.p.a, then that group is probably misnamed; it looks like a group for discussing AppleTalk standards, not AppleTalk implementation. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@cwjcc.cwru.edu