tlimonce@drunivac.uucp (12/22/89)
The current problems with c.s.a and c.s.a.t include: 1 -- Too much cross posting 2 -- Too much volume Of course, what we want to do is reduce #1 and help out #2. I claim that #1 is caused by ONE reason: 1 -- Ambiguous names. I am not the first to mention this. "Technical" is in the eye of the beholder. Hooking up a hard drive is just as technical as fancy drawing techniques with DeLuxePaint III... DEPENDING on just who you are. (Oh no, I've made an absolute statement. I can see the flames coming now. Whee. ) I'm glad to see that we are trying to help #2 by creating more newsgroups. I think the name of c.s.a.t was a mistake. Though we continually remind posters that it is for development-type ".tech" but people still crosspost everything (an exageration) to c.s.a.t. Let's rmgroup c.s.a.tech and create better divided groups. Here's how I see it: comp.sys.amiga -- Misc stuff, games, software reviews, gripes, questions, discussions (and a wonderful place for seemingly endless and annoying "my GUI/Computer/OS is better than yours" arguments. [By the way, my GUI/Computer/OS *is* better than... oh nevermind. :-) ] comp.sys.amiga.arts -- Visual, audio, etc. i.e. no games :-) comp.sys.amiga.hardware -- Hardware reviews, config, installing, problems, and development comp.sys.amiga.programmer -- I was going to say "software" but that could be reviews, etc. That's for comp.sys.amiga. This would be technical programming conversations. Most importantly, I'd like to see all the monthly postings begin with DO NOT CROSSPOST BETWEEN ANY COMP.SYS.AMIGA* NEWSGROUPS. IF YOU FEEL YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO, RECONSIDER WHAT CATEGORY IT SHOULD BE IN. DO NOT CROSSPOST EVERY MESSAGE IN COMP.SYS.AMIGA.* TO COMP.SYS.AMIGA. REFRAIN FROM CROSSPOSTING FROM A NON-AMIGA NEWSGROUP TO AN AMIGA NEWSGROUP UNLESS IT RELATES TO BOTH NEWSGROUPS. THIS INCLUDES MY (whatever) IS BETTER THAN YOUR (whatever). Yes, in all caps because it should be shouted at everyone. This is negotiable, since I'll back down on it as soon as this damn "Xerox/Apple/MS-DOS GUI debate" stops getting crossposted to c.s.a for no apparent reason. I feel that this is a good split based on current postings. How do YOU feel? There isn't all that much discussion so far. When this (or something like it) goes up for vote, I have a feeling that people will start talking then; which is wrong. Does anyone at CATS have anything to say? Merry Yule, Tom tlimonce@drew.uucp -- rutgers!drew!tlimonce tlimonce@drew.Bitnet limonce@pilot.njin.net (Do not reply to this site... use one of the above.)
jonabbey@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Abbey) (12/23/89)
// /\ /\/\ | Jonathan Abbey - jonabbey@doc.cc.utexas.edu - (512) 926-5934 \X/ / \ / \ | Wildly interested in virtual reality / 3d graphics...
jonabbey@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Abbey) (12/23/89)
In article <27751.2591a982@drunivac.uucp> tlimonce@drunivac.uucp writes: >Let's rmgroup c.s.a.tech and create better divided groups. Here's how >I see it: >comp.sys.amiga -- Misc stuff, games, software reviews, gripes, etc.. >comp.sys.amiga.arts -- Visual, audio, etc. i.e. no games :-) >comp.sys.amiga.hardware -- Hardware reviews, config, installing, >problems, and development >comp.sys.amiga.programmer -- I was going to say "software" but that >could be reviews, etc. That's for comp.sys.amiga. This would be >technical programming conversations. >Merry Yule, >Tom I think this would make a nice split.. I agree that comp.sys.amiga.programmer would probably be a more appropriate name than comp.sys.amiga.tech, especially if comp.sys.amiga.hardware is formed, so that there is a forum for both software and hardware tech. There might not be quite enough art traffic to justify comp.sys.amiga.arts, but having such a group might tend to stimulate conversation in the area... I would be in favor of rmgroup'ing c.s.a.t in favor of c.s.a.p/c.s.a.h, myself. It would make for a much cleaner thread of programming discussion, and would provide a defined forum for the endless stream of requests for information on hard drive and memory expansion. (And a good place for me to go when I save up enough for some RAM myself...) It would also be useful for c.s.a.h to maintain a seperate montly posting/ article archive on the more well-known hardware add-ons, and their various pros and cons.. I say put lets officially put out a call for discussion of splitting c.s.a.t into .hardware and .programmer groups. // /\ /\/\ | Jonathan Abbey - jonabbey@doc.cc.utexas.edu - (512) 926-5934 \X/ / \ / \ | Wildly interested in virtual reality / 3d graphics...
eberger@godot.psc.edu (Ed Berger) (12/23/89)
In article <27751.2591a982@drunivac.uucp> tlimonce@drunivac.uucp writes: >Let's rmgroup c.s.a.tech and create better divided groups. Here's how >I see it: > >comp.sys.amiga -- Misc stuff, games, software reviews, gripes, >questions, discussions (and a wonderful place for seemingly endless >and annoying "my GUI/Computer/OS is better than yours" arguments. >[By the way, my GUI/Computer/OS *is* better than... oh nevermind. :-) ] >comp.sys.amiga.arts -- Visual, audio, etc. i.e. no games :-) Shouldn't that be comp.sys.amiga.creative.mind ;-) or comp.sys.amiga.multi-media >comp.sys.amiga.hardware -- Hardware reviews, config, installing, >problems, and development >comp.sys.amiga.programmer -- I was going to say "software" but that >could be reviews, etc. That's for comp.sys.amiga. This would be >technical programming conversations. I think comp.sys.amiga.programming would be a better name, csaprogrammer is still too ambiguous: "Hi, I'm an amiga programmer, what games should I buy?" The name should reflect the appropriate content for the newsgroup. Its about time for a hardware group, Its a specialty like programming, that requires its own following to be very effective, and it should unload the burden of hardware issues out of comp.sys.amiga.tech who would prefer to be comp.sys.amiga.programming.only. and out of the general forum that already is overloaded called comp.sys.amiga. IMHO, etc. -Ed Berger eberger@b.psc.edu
fac2@dayton.saic.com (Earle Ake) (12/24/89)
In article <22710@ut-emx.UUCP>, jonabbey@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Abbey) writes: > In article <27751.2591a982@drunivac.uucp> tlimonce@drunivac.uucp writes: > >>comp.sys.amiga -- Misc stuff, games, software reviews, gripes, etc.. > >>comp.sys.amiga.arts -- Visual, audio, etc. i.e. no games :-) > >>comp.sys.amiga.hardware -- Hardware reviews, config, installing, >>problems, and development > >>comp.sys.amiga.programmer -- I was going to say "software" but that >>could be reviews, etc. That's for comp.sys.amiga. This would be >>technical programming conversations. > > I say put lets officially put out a call for discussion of splitting > c.s.a.t into .hardware and .programmer groups. I like the above split to the four groups as well. Something with the word 'tech' in it doesn't really mean much as most of us are technical people. Does this mean that everything I post goes there? I am in favor of the .hardware, the .programmer, and the .arts categories. When we call for a vote, let's also include the .arts creation as well. -- _____________________________________________________________________________ ____ ____ ___ Earle Ake /___ /___/ / / Science Applications International Corporation ____// / / /__ Dayton, Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: fac2%dayton.saic.com@uunet.uu.net uucp: uunet!dayvb!fac2
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/24/89)
I think comp.sys.amiga.tech does a fine job at filtering the non-technical messages out. Crossposting to comp.sys.amiga is irritating at worst. It affects me not at all... I unsubscribed to the base group. Splitting it into .programmer and .hardware wouldn't be a split at all. Where would discussions of MMUs go? Can you say crossposted to both? I knew you could. Besides, a good deal of the hardware discussion is consumerist, not technical at all. "What's the best SCSI adaptor for the Amiga 2000" doesn't belong in a technical group. A non-technical hardware group to pull the last remaining trash out of .tech would do just fine. And it's a minimal change... -- `-_-' 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
filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) (12/25/89)
Priorities, folks. From the discussion so far, it looks like the
comp.sys.amiga hierarchy should eventually contain:
comp.sys.amiga
comp.sys.amiga.programming
comp.sys.amiga.hardware
comp.sys.amiga.arts
and perhaps
comp.sys.amiga.games
Unfortunately, the Usenet guidelines do not provide a mechanism for
voting on multiple groups in a single vote. Even worse, the Usenet
*software* (and when I say that, realize that I'm referring to about a
dozen different software systems, each with multiple versions in the
field) does NOT have a reliable mechanism for renaming a group.
I believe the guidelines could be stretched to allow a single poll to
ratify multiple actions, e.g. the creation of two (or three) new groups
and the renaming of another. It's probably not a good idea to try it.
The guidelines say, in effect, that a "YES" vote means that the voter
agrees with the proposed group's name, charter, etc. *exactly as
proposed*. This gets exponentially more difficult as more groups are to
be handled in one vote. Suppose that 80% of the voters agree to each of
the subproposals (create c.s.a.hardware, create c.s.a.arts, rename
c.s.a.tech as c.s.a.programming), but further suppose that there is no
correlation between which ones the voter agrees with. Then the number
of voters that agree with all 3 subproposals is 80% to the third power
-- 51.2%, not enough to meet the 2/3 "YES" requirement.
That argument is bogus in a couple of ways (most importantly, that many
voters who agree with 2 of the 3 parts would vote "unambiguous YES" to
get at least 2/3 of their desires implemented; and that there *IS*
correlation), but it is valid *enough* to be important.
Another choice would be to run a vote to select a single action out of
the multiple choices, using STV, MAUVE, or some other similar scheme.
It's not clear that the guidelines allow this (ignoring recent fishy
business). More to the point, *I* have called this particular
discussion and *I* want to run a vote on comp.sys.amiga.hardware. I
have no wish to run a multi-way vote (with accompanying flamefest).
In defense of that position: I think, of all the proposals, .hardware
will do the most to decrease traffic in the current groups. Therefore
it should be done first.
Other people may later call discussions and then votes on c.s.a.arts,
c.s.a.games, and c.s.a.tech->c.s.a.programming. The latter could
probably be implemented as follows: create c.s.a.programming and ask
well-connected sites to alias c.s.a.tech to c.s.a.programming. Let this
situation develop for several months. Then rmgroup c.s.a.tech. Some
confusion would result at leaf sites, but it would be relatively easy to
clear up. Note that this would *NOT* work if there is *ANY* news
software which will propagate an rmgroup of an aliased group as if it
were an rmgroup of the group to which it is aliased; or would act on it
as such. Any comments from news wizards?
Regarding the suggestions for c.s.a.questions or c.s.a.discussion:
discussion is what all but special-purpose moderated groups are made of.
Questions lead to discussion. The distinction between these groups and
the base group would be far fuzzier than between the base and .tech
groups of today. Please, let us create specific and unambiguous
sub-groups. We can always add more, or more finely divide existing ones
later (e.g. .hardware to .hardware.reviews and .hardware.design) as the
need becomes apparent.
c.s.a.multi-media: sure, but what about people doing only video, only
music, etc.? It's ambiguous and they end up posting to c.s.a, or
cross-posting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is still not a call for votes; that will not happen until 1/1/90 at
the earliest. Also please note that I will be receiving votes at a
different account, yet to be determined. This site's connect bandwidth
is not wide enough to split between newsfeeds, mail, dial-up users and a
large flow of votes.
Bela Lubkin * * // filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us CI$: 73047,1112 (slow)
@ * * // belal@sco.com ..ucbvax!ucscc!{gorn!filbo,sco!belal}
R Pentomino * \X/ Filbo @ Pyrzqxgl +408-476-4633 and XBBS +408-476-4945swan@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Joel Swan) (12/25/89)
In article <878.25936d89@dayton.saic.com> fac2@dayton.saic.com (Earle Ake) writes: :In article <22710@ut-emx.UUCP>, jonabbey@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Abbey) writes: :> In article <27751.2591a982@drunivac.uucp> tlimonce@drunivac.uucp writes: :> :>>comp.sys.amiga -- Misc stuff, games, software reviews, gripes, etc.. :> :>>comp.sys.amiga.arts -- Visual, audio, etc. i.e. no games :-) :> :>>comp.sys.amiga.hardware -- Hardware reviews, config, installing, :>>problems, and development :> :>>comp.sys.amiga.programmer -- I was going to say "software" but that :>>could be reviews, etc. That's for comp.sys.amiga. This would be :>>technical programming conversations. :> :> I say put lets officially put out a call for discussion of splitting :> c.s.a.t into .hardware and .programmer groups. : :I like the above split to the four groups as well. Something with the word :'tech' in it doesn't really mean much as most of us are technical people. :Does this mean that everything I post goes there? I am in favor of the :.hardware, the .programmer, and the .arts categories. When we call for a :vote, let's also include the .arts creation as well. : :-- :_____________________________________________________________________________ : ____ ____ ___ :Earle Ake /___ /___/ / / Science Applications International Corporation : ____// / / /__ Dayton, Ohio :----------------------------------------------------------------------------- :Internet: fac2%dayton.saic.com@uunet.uu.net uucp: uunet!dayvb!fac2 I like the Hardware-programmer split very much. It would pretty much create a clean break that can be chosen with confidence, not wondering if "tech" means hardware, or technical questions about software. I would say no to the "arts" sub-catagory. I think comp.sys.amiga could easily contain the remainder of the postings and not get to unmanageable. It could be a catch all for questions, arts, games, etc. and still make up about 1/3 of the postings. I would like to see comp.sys.amiga comp.sys.amiga.hardware comp.sys.amiga.prog (I think programming is better than "software" because software is broad a scope) Joel
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/26/89)
I cannot argue strongly enough against removing comp.sys.amiga.tech. Not only does it work acceptably well, but you have no guarantee that what you replace it with will work any better. And the intervening chaos will help no one. Go ahead and create comp.sys.amiga.hardware, and any other new groups you want, but leave tech alone. -- `-_-' 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
spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) (12/26/89)
In article <7414@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >I cannot argue strongly enough against removing comp.sys.amiga.tech. Not only >does it work acceptably well, but you have no guarantee that what you replace >it with will work any better. And the intervening chaos will help no one. > >Go ahead and create comp.sys.amiga.hardware, and any other new groups you >want, but leave tech alone. ... how about comp.sys.amiga.aquaria? :-) spl (the p stands for practicing my duck and cover flame-raid drill right now...) -- Steve Lamont, sciViGuy EMail: spl@ncsc.org NCSC, Box 12732, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 "Reality involves a square root" Thomas Palmer
bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) (12/26/89)
In article <7409@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Splitting it into .programmer and .hardware wouldn't be a split at all. >Where would discussions of MMUs go? Can you say crossposted to both? I knew >you could. Mmmm, I think the distinction is clear: "comp.sys.amiga.hardware": discussions about MMU:s, where to get them, what they cost, how to install them without bending their pins etc. "comp.sys.amiga.programmer": Discussions about programming MMU:s, special instructions for MMU:s etc. I think the ".hardware" and ".programmer" split is a good one. It works really well for "comp.sys.mac", for example. -- Bengt Larsson - Dep. of Math. Statistics, Lund University, Sweden Internet: bengtl@maths.lth.se SUNET: TYCHE::BENGT_L
ludde@nada.kth.se (Erik Lundevall) (12/26/89)
In article <878.25936d89@dayton.saic.com> fac2@dayton.saic.com (Earle Ake) writes: >In article <22710@ut-emx.UUCP>, jonabbey@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Abbey) writes: >> I say put lets officially put out a call for discussion of splitting >> c.s.a.t into .hardware and .programmer groups. > >I like the above split to the four groups as well. Something with the word >'tech' in it doesn't really mean much as most of us are technical people. >Does this mean that everything I post goes there? I am in favor of the >.hardware, the .programmer, and the .arts categories. When we call for a >vote, let's also include the .arts creation as well. I agree that a change of c.s.a.tech to c.s.a.programmer (or c.s.a.programming) could be a good thing, and a new group called c.s.a.arts might also be good. But the discussion was about creating comp.sys.amiga.hardware, let's keep to that one. As many other have said, the number of hardware-related articles definitely justify the creation of c.s.a.hardware. The newsgroup should not only include technical stuff, but all kinds of hardware-related discussions. I favour a comp.sys.amiga.hardware newsgroup. >_____________________________________________________________________________ > ____ ____ ___ >Earle Ake /___ /___/ / / Science Applications International Corporation > ____// / / /__ Dayton, Ohio >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Internet: fac2%dayton.saic.com@uunet.uu.net uucp: uunet!dayvb!fac2 -- -Erik Lundevall Internet: ludde@nada.kth.se SnailMail: Korsbarsvagen 4B/422,S-114 23 STOCKHOLM,SWEDEN BBS: +46 8 348523 300-2400 bps (Camelot - Swedens first Amiga BBS) "If you can't convince them, confuse them" -Harry Truman
swan@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Joel Swan) (12/27/89)
In article <2625@draken.nada.kth.se> ludde@nada.kth.se (Erik Lundevall) writes: :In article <878.25936d89@dayton.saic.com> fac2@dayton.saic.com (Earle Ake) writes: :>In article <22710@ut-emx.UUCP>, jonabbey@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Abbey) writes: :>> I say put lets officially put out a call for discussion of splitting :>> c.s.a.t into .hardware and .programmer groups. :> :>I like the above split to the four groups as well. Something with the word :>'tech' in it doesn't really mean much as most of us are technical people. :>Does this mean that everything I post goes there? I am in favor of the :>.hardware, the .programmer, and the .arts categories. When we call for a :>vote, let's also include the .arts creation as well. : :I agree that a change of c.s.a.tech to c.s.a.programmer (or c.s.a.programming) :could be a good thing, and a new group called c.s.a.arts might also be good. :But the discussion was about creating comp.sys.amiga.hardware, let's keep to :that one. I find this an impossible task seeing that we would then have c.s.a.tech AND c.s.a.hardware. Which do you then post to? Talk about cross posting -- this would do it. I don't think we can divorce talk about c.s.a.hardware and a re-naming or re-grouping of c.s.a.tech. If we do go with c.s.a.hardware, and c.s.a.tech is changed (I don't see how we could logically keep from changing it), we would almost certainly need a logical counter part to c.s.a.hardware in the "technical" realm. Hence, c.s.a.programming. I think the original call for discussion on c.s.a.hardware and ONLY c.s.a.hardware may have been a little bit short sighted. I cannot keep to that one topic. Changing c.s.a.tech MUST come into play. As for Peter's problem with MMU questions... post in the group the would most likely have the answer. If it's a question that would most probably take a software answer, post it in c.s.a.programming. In the mean time, there would be LOTS of clearly defined hardware specific and clearly defined software specific issues. This division would neatly divide them up for the "hardeware" techies and the "software" techies. (remember how often you hear "since I'm not a hardware guy...") :>_____________________________________________________________________________ :> ____ ____ ___ :>Earle Ake /___ /___/ / / Science Applications International Corporation :> ____// / / /__ Dayton, Ohio :>----------------------------------------------------------------------------- :>Internet: fac2%dayton.saic.com@uunet.uu.net uucp: uunet!dayvb!fac2 : : :-- :-Erik Lundevall Internet: ludde@nada.kth.se : SnailMail: Korsbarsvagen 4B/422,S-114 23 STOCKHOLM,SWEDEN : BBS: +46 8 348523 300-2400 bps (Camelot - Swedens first Amiga BBS) : "If you can't convince them, confuse them" -Harry Truman I also support comp.sys.hardware, but only if c.s.a.tech is revamped to keep from creating more confusion. Joel Swan
filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) (12/28/89)
In article <2564@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US> Joel Swan writes: >I find this an impossible task seeing that we would then have c.s.a.tech AND >c.s.a.hardware. Which do you then post to? Talk about cross posting -- this >would do it. I don't think we can divorce talk about c.s.a.hardware and >a re-naming or re-grouping of c.s.a.tech. Joel, most of the people in this discussion agree in principle that c.s.a.tech should be renamed as c.s.a.programming. The problem is that there is NO MECHANISM for doing this. The guidelines do not cover it, but that's not important; it can be "read in" easily enough. But there is no "rename group" control message. It would have to be done by hand, by the individual news managers of all 10000+ sites that carry c.s.a.tech. An additional problem is that, as I stated before, a vote is supposed to be clear and unambiguous; therefore, technically, if someone supports one change (e.g. create c.s.a.hardware) but not the other (rename c.s.a.tech), they must vote "NO". That means that individual changes should be put to individual votes. It remains to be seen whether c.s.a.hardware would cause a crossposting problem. If it does, you are very welcome to run a vote for renaming the tech group. Just, please, keep it separate from other votes. Wait a few weeks after the creation (if such happens) of c.s.a.hardware; then, if it seems necessary, try to rename c.s.a.tech. >I think the original call for discussion on c.s.a.hardware and ONLY >c.s.a.hardware may have been a little bit short sighted. I cannot keep to >that one topic. Changing c.s.a.tech MUST come into play. I am trying to work within the guidelines. There have been a lot of questionable votes recently. I generally agree with the feeling that the guidelines should be broadened, etc., but I'd like to keep this vote strictly by the book. I particularly do not want to lump together an easy win (c.s.a.h) with something that will generate considerable resistance (renaming c.s.a.t). Considerable resistance? Many people will say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Worse, there may be serious problems with the mechanics of renaming a group; people may vote against such a proposal just to avoid the weeks of confusion and software hassle that would inevitably follow. >I also support comp.sys.hardware, but only if c.s.a.tech is revamped to keep >from creating more confusion. Again, run a discussion/vote later. I would support it. The name IS better, and observing a rename attempt in an active group would be fascinating. But please don't insist that it be piggybacked onto the hardware group vote. Bela Lubkin * * // filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us CI$: 73047,1112 (slow) @ * * // belal@sco.com ..ucbvax!ucscc!{gorn!filbo,sco!belal} R Pentomino * \X/ Filbo @ Pyrzqxgl +408-476-4633 and XBBS +408-476-4945
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/28/89)
In article <2564@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US> swan@jolnet.UUCP (Joel Swan) writes: > I find this an impossible task seeing that we would then have c.s.a.tech AND > c.s.a.hardware. Which do you then post to? Depends. If you're designing a card, comp.sys.amiga.tech. If you just want to find the best hard drive for under $600, comp.sys.amiga.hardware. > I don't think we can divorce talk about c.s.a.hardware and > a re-naming or re-grouping of c.s.a.tech. I think we can. I see no reason to remove comp.sys.amiga.tech, and I think that comp.sys.amiga.hardware is a good idea. I, for one, would vote for comp.sys.amiga.hardware... but I'd vote against any attemp to rename comp.sys.amiga.tech. The latter move is both of dubious value and likely to cause a period of confusion. "tech" is not a synonym for "software". The last thing we need is a bunch of game reviews in the (renamed) .tech group. If you REALLY want to rename things, then you need at least four groups: comp.sys.amiga.software comp.sys.amiga.hardware comp.sys.amiga.programmer or comp.sys.amiga.software.tech or... comp.sys.amiga.designer or comp.sys.amiga.hardware.tech or... It might be possible to do without .designer, but you'll get all the folks working on things like LUCAS upset. You could also combine the latter two groups, but that's what we have now. > As for Peter's problem with MMU questions... I don't think the world is quite as cleanly defined as you think. Anyone working on a device driver is an automatic crosspost. So is anyone thinking of doing it. The Amiga isn't like UNIX, Macs, or PeeCees... stuff like device drivers are fairly easy, and there are quite a few out there. Go ahead with any new groups you want. But don't trash .tech without providing a *real* replacement. I'm interested in hardware and software alike, but I could care less about the latest spreadsheet or yet another SCSI vs ST506 debate. -- `-_-' 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
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/02/90)
In article <1989Dec26.130551.10617@lth.se> bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) writes: > I think the ".hardware" and ".programmer" split is a good one. It works > really well for "comp.sys.mac", for example. Probably would work well for the Amiga groups, but I don't think it'd work much better than just adding .hardware. Certainly I wouldn't expect the difference to be enough to warrant the chaos a renaming would cause. It ain't broke. Don't try to fix it. -- `-_-' 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
ianr@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Ian ROWLANDS) (01/02/90)
Here are some interesting figures for news in the last month :-
comp.sys.amiga is 34th in popularity
4th in volume
doesn't rank in crossposting
These figures indicate to me that comp.sys.amiga must be branched off and
broken down sooner than later. comp.sys.amiga.hardware is a start, and relieve
the traffic a bit, comp.sys.amiga.art (or some similar group) would help even
more. This would probably do for a start.
For those who believe comp.sys.amiga should be left as is, COME OFF IT!
You obviously don't try to keep up with the group, and at least (usually) 80+
articles a day is a bit too much. It can take 1.5 hours to read, which will
have to be cut substantially when my course resumes. I doubt I would read all
the proposed groups, so it would cut my reading by a bit.
comp.sys.amiga.hardware, come on down! Let's also try to break it down
further later.
Ian
"My opinions only, but hereby placed in the public domain :-) "
Ian Rowlands | "I don't want to be political, but you
Dept. of Electrical Engineering | can't trust the ALP!"
University of Melbourne | -Joh Bjelke-Petersen
Email :- ianr@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au | (Flames to ianr@uluru.ecr.mu.oz.au)