david@indetech.com (David Kuder) (01/24/90)
In article <5296@okstate.UUCP> garnett@okstate.UUCP (John Garnett) writes: > {Discussing comp.sources.graphics} This would provide a place for the > growing number of packages that peform image rendering, manipulation, > etc. (the packages named in the FAQ automated posting would provide > more than enough source to start the ball rolling). One quick observation. The sources listed in the FAQ have already be posted to the net or are archived in well know places. Having a group for sources would neither mean that those things would once again flood the net nor that anything new would not have a place to be posted. (This is common misconception that some people hold: No group implies no traffic. Not true. While on the meta-issues, most discussions of news group creation are held in both groups where interested readers might be found and in news.groups. This message (and other sporadic ones in the chain) have added that group to the discussion.) >Groups that I would like to suggest: >comp.graphics.gui (graphical user-interfaces, some overlappage here with >the X-Windows group) Well so it's more than one observation. comp.windows covers this in its subtree: comp.windows.x, comp.windows.news and comp.windows.misc. There is also comp.cog-eng for the meta-issues of GUI design. Drag this one to the nearest trashcan icon and drop it in. >Oh, yes. Let us not forget the ongoing debate over posting images >(someone else can tackle this one). No. Please forget it and its megabytes. To paraphrase that outcry last time: No on my modem you don't! -- David A. Kuder Now what coach? 415 438-2003 david@indetech.com {uunet,sun,sharkey,pacbell}!indetech!david