peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/01/90)
Happy new year. OK, it's January 1. I'll be calling for votes for comp.sys.ibm.pc.something on January 9th. So far the following suggestions have been made: comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer comp.os.msdos I'm inclined to call for a vote for the second one, but there really hasn't been much of a consensus. Would anyone mind if I ran the vote for .programmer? If not, I'll do that. Otherwise I'll run an STV vote with the three names listed above on the ballot. The charter of the group is: technical discussions of interest to people who program the IBM-PC under DOS. It's likely to include considerable hardware discussion, just because of the nature of the beast. It probably shouldn't involve OS/2 or Microsoft Windows stuff, though: they're already represented on the net (comp.os.os2 and comp.windows.ms). -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (01/02/90)
In article <:EXZGDny2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: | | comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech | comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer | comp.os.msdos I humbly suggest that you have one good name and two good group ideas here. Having a group for MS-DOS, separate from the PC hardware platform is a good idea. So is having a group for discussion of the hardware platform independent of MS-DOS. Comp.os.msdos is a good name for the o/s group *if that's what you mean to create*. I would expect that group to contain stuff on the o/s and generic applications for it (maybe not even the apps). A group for the PC hardware platform would also be good for questions about disk drives, clock speeds, memory installation, etc. I guess the .tech is the best of the names you have suggested. In spite of the .programmer being used in the alt area, it is not a really good name in terms of "what goes there." I would really like to see the term .hardware used, but there's no president for it. I really think that a descriptive name will help make this group perform the function which you rightly believe is needed. I would certainly support two groups, since the catchall group is so cluttered that it needs a LOT of (well chosen) division. -- bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX davidsen@sixhub.uucp ...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen "Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon
rmtodd@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Richard Michael Todd) (01/02/90)
In article <369@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > A group for the PC hardware platform would also be good for questions >about disk drives, clock speeds, memory installation, etc. I guess the >.tech is the best of the names you have suggested. > In spite of the .programmer being used in the alt area, it is not a >really good name in terms of "what goes there." I would really like to >see the term .hardware used, but there's no president for it. Obviously you're not a reader of the Mac groups :-). Comp.sys.mac.hardware has been around for some time now, with discussions on just that sort of thing (disk drives, memory installation, video cards) for Mac computers. There's also a comp.sys.mac.programmer group for discussing the gory details of programming the MacOS. The PC newsreading folk might do well to follow the precedent laid down by the Mac newsreading folk... -- Richard Todd rmtodd@chinet.chi.il.us or rmtodd@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) (01/04/90)
In article <:EXZGDny2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
$OK, it's January 1. I'll be calling for votes for comp.sys.ibm.pc.something
$on January 9th. So far the following suggestions have been made:
$ comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech
$ comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
$ comp.os.msdos
How will this group differ from alt.msdos.programmer, other than wider
distribution? (which leads to the related question - why wasn't a.m.p
set up as a comp group in the first place?)
My personal preference there would be for the .programmer name, since
it is supposed to focus on programming the PC. However, the name does
leave open the possibility of programming under any other OS or environment
for the PC, and I'm sure some such questions would come up.
There ... my $0.0172 or so worth ($0.02 Canadian)
--
Stephen M. Dunn cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
<std_disclaimer.h> = "\nI'm only an undergraduate!!!\n";
****************************************************************************
If it's true that love is only a game//Well, then I can play pretenddavidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (01/04/90)
In article <25A26459.27214@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) writes: | How will this group differ from alt.msdos.programmer, other than wider | distribution? (which leads to the related question - why wasn't a.m.p | set up as a comp group in the first place?) To create a comp group you have to pass a vote. One of the best ways to do that is to set up an alt group and prove that it has enough readers and low enough noise to be useful. Alt distribution is getting better and I'm not sure that we really NEED a comp group, but if that's what people want I won't object. -- bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX davidsen@sixhub.uucp ...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen "Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (01/05/90)
Comp.sys.ibm.pc is the most active group on the net -- which is to say that it has perhaps the greatest product of readers and articles -- more time is spent on it than any other. I do not believe it should be split apart haphazardly, with "let's take a group off here, let's take a group off there." This group could easily be split into about 6 groups or more. Any online service has *dozens* of categories for discussion of IBM PC related stuff, USENET has just a couple. The creation of several groups can't easily be done by vote. The vote would be hairy and would be unlikely to provide a consistent result. I propose instead that somebody become group czar *just* for the ibm.pc groups. This czar would create and remove groups as desired, and would be charged at first with creating 5-6 subgroups, including one for software development, and one for 'industry' issues like lawsuits, ethics, people etc. If I end up being that volunteer, my preliminary list would look like hardware display mass storage software development industry communications I would invite comments, but the final decision, if I were in this role, would be mine. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (01/05/90)
In article <71634@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: | If I end up being that volunteer, my preliminary list would look like | hardware | display | mass storage | software | development | industry | communications | Where would all the questions about interrupts, ethernet, optical disk, serial ports, etc, go? I think the idea of just a small split at first would serve us best, to put the hardware, low level software (bypass DOS), and msdos stuff into three groups. And I'm not offering to be czar. -- bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX davidsen@sixhub.uucp ...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen "Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/05/90)
I think that Brad might make a fine newgroup Czar for comp.sys.ibm.pc, but
doubt if such a radical idea would fly.
How about an STV vote among (at least) the proposals:
A comp.sys.ibm.pc.{hardware,programmer}, both groups.
B comp.os.msdos and comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware, both groups.
C Making Brad Templeton Czar of comp.sys.ibm.pc.all.
D comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech.
E comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
( and whatever else gets suggested )
And of course
N NO GROUP.
Votes would be counted by the STV technique. Additional write-in proposals
would be allowed. At the end of the voting period I would run the STV
process until a proposal passes the guidelines (100 votes more than all
other remaining candidates, including NO GROUP, and more than twice as
many votes for the group as for all other remaining candidates, including
NO GROUP). Votes for NO GROUP would not be transferred. Votes otherwise
running out will be discarded.
Votes should match the following pattern:
VOTE D N
This should be alone on a line somewhere in the body of the message. I'll
probably set up a pseudo-address for the job.
What say?
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \ Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>
\_.--._/
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) (01/05/90)
In article <376@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >Alt distribution is getting >better and I'm not sure that we really NEED a comp group, but if that's >what people want I won't object. It may be getting better, but there are even entire countries like Iceland :-(, that do not receive a single alt group. Personally I would like to see something like: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer comp.sys.ibm.pc.programs-wanted but I guess it is next to impossible to decide how/if to split comp.sys.ibm.pc. -- Fridrik Skulason University of Iceland frisk@rhi.hi.is Computing Sevices Guvf yvar vagragvbanyyl yrsg oynax .................
poffen@molehill (Russ Poffenberger) (01/06/90)
In article <71634@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Comp.sys.ibm.pc is the most active group on the net -- which is to say that >it has perhaps the greatest product of readers and articles -- more time is >spent on it than any other. > >I do not believe it should be split apart haphazardly, with "let's take >a group off here, let's take a group off there." > >This group could easily be split into about 6 groups or more. Any online >service has *dozens* of categories for discussion of IBM PC related stuff, >USENET has just a couple. > >The creation of several groups can't easily be done by vote. The vote would >be hairy and would be unlikely to provide a consistent result. > >I propose instead that somebody become group czar *just* for the ibm.pc >groups. This czar would create and remove groups as desired, and would >be charged at first with creating 5-6 subgroups, including one for >software development, and one for 'industry' issues like lawsuits, ethics, >people etc. > >If I end up being that volunteer, my preliminary list would look like > hardware > display > mass storage > software > development > industry > communications > >I would invite comments, but the final decision, if I were in this role, >would be mine. >-- I can think of only one group to split c.s.i.p into, and that would be to create comp.sys.ibm.pc.flame.wars. I am getting sick of reading this newsgroup to try and find useful information, or get help, only to find 50% of the bandwidth taken by MAC vs PC flame wars. This is getting VERY ridiculous. Take these wars to alt.flame, or e-mail your flame wars to each other. Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254
emmo@moncam.co.uk (Dave Emmerson) (01/06/90)
Personally, I'd rather see just 2 or 3 smaller groups, otherwise there's likely to be a lot of cross-posting. Just imagine if all those Mac/PC battles had been plastered across 6 c.s.i.p.* groups. I propose hardware/DOS/applications No way I'll be czar. If you do it, you do it your own way, fair 'nuff. Dave.