filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) (12/16/89)
This is a call for discussion about the creation of a new newsgroup for
Amiga hardware. Topics that might be relevant to this discussion include:
Why add a new Amiga group? The two existing Amiga discussion groups,
comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.tech, have a great deal of traffic.
c.s.a is consistently among the top 20 groups in terms of total size and
number of articles, as well as readership.
Why a hardware group? There was some discussion of a games group;
later, of an art group. Yet by informal survey, games- and art-related
messages each make up about 10% of the traffic in c.s.a;
hardware-related articles amount to about 35%. Thus I believe that a
hardware group is better justified at this time. (35% of ~70 messages/
day is 25/day; I did not survey .tech but it would probably contribute
another 5/day or so to the group). If there was a good name under which
both 'art' and 'games' could be subsumed ('recreation' comes close but
ignores the large percentage of Amiga artists that are doing commercial
work), that group might also be worth considering.
Given a hardware group, what name is appropriate? There are really only
two choices here: comp.sys.amiga.hardware or comp.sys.amiga.hw. I could
live with either but prefer '.hardware'. It follows the precedent set
by comp.sys.mac.hardware; it is clearer; there is no great benefit to a
shorter name.
Ok, given a name, a charter and moderated/unmoderated status must be
determined before a vote can proceed. I don't think there's any
question that this would be an unmoderated group. A first pass at a
charter:
Purpose: discussion about Amiga computer hardware. Questions about
the purchase of new hardware; problems with existing hardware;
reviews of hardware products; modification and hacks of existing
hardware; design of new hardware. POTENTIALLY: hardware-specific
programming (or does that belong in .tech; or should it go
unmentioned so as not to encourage it?)
THIS IS NOT A CALL FOR VOTES; please do not send votes. Usenet
newsgroup creation guidelines do not allow premature votes to be
counted. A call for votes will be posted not before 1 Jan 1990, and
not after 15 Jan 1990, unless major issues remain unresolved through
those dates. Issues to be resolved are:
o What, if any, type of group to create. I say: a hardware group.
o What to call this group: comp.sys.amiga.hardware.
o Whether the group should be moderated: no.
o The group's charter: see above, but please discuss revisions.
Followups are directed to news.groups. Please include news.groups in
all related discussion; please minimize cross-postings to the Amiga
groups. Amiga readers interested in this discussion should follow
news.groups for the next 2-5 weeks (or whatever it takes (but this
should have no reason to generate drawn-out arguments like certain other
recent group proposals)).
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 +408-476-4945tlimonce@drunivac.uucp (12/19/89)
In article <108.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us>, filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) writes: > Purpose: discussion about Amiga computer hardware. Questions about > the purchase of new hardware; problems with existing hardware; > reviews of hardware products; modification and hacks of existing > hardware; design of new hardware. POTENTIALLY: hardware-specific > programming (or does that belong in .tech; or should it go > unmentioned so as not to encourage it?) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^--well, I suggest that programming stay in .tech. This looks like a good proposal. Right now there is a big problem where everything is posted in comp.sys.amiga or crossposted to comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.amiga.tech. When everyone does this, it destroys the advantage that one receives from separate newsgroups. Part of the problem is that .tech isn't too descriptive. The charter wasn't too clear and there was discussion at voting time to call it .programmer or .programming to avoid this problem. Oh well, what is done is done. I would like to see c.s.a.h, but I would also like to see c.s.a.t renamed to c.s.a.programmer. Since there is no "rename" control message; it would be nice if this vote could be tied to a committment from users to not crossposting. -Tom P.S. It would be nice if crossposting could be disabled. That is, physically by the software at each site. :-) --- NOTE: Do not REPLY to this message. Until software upgrades are done, use one of the below or "rutgers!drew!tlimonce". Tom Limoncelli -- tlimonce@drunivac.Bitnet -- limonce@pilot.njin.net Drew University -- Box 1060, Madison, NJ -- 201-408-5389 :) Standard Disclaimer: I am not the mouth-piece of Drew University (: "DEC's All-In-1 isn't completely useless, but it's a nice attempt."
filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) (12/20/89)
In <108.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us> I (Bela) wrote: >> Purpose: discussion about Amiga computer hardware. Questions about >> the purchase of new hardware; problems with existing hardware; >> reviews of hardware products; modification and hacks of existing >> hardware; design of new hardware. POTENTIALLY: hardware-specific >> programming (or does that belong in .tech; or should it go >> unmentioned so as not to encourage it?) In article <27235.258d60f0@drunivac.uucp> Tom Limoncelli writes: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^--well, I suggest that programming stay in .tech. I agree; my brain must have been on sideways when I wrote that. > [too much crossposting between c.s.a and c.s.a.t] >Part of the problem is that .tech isn't too descriptive. The charter >wasn't too clear and there was discussion at voting time to call it >.programmer or .programming to avoid this problem. Oh well, what is >done is done. >I would like to see c.s.a.h, but I would also like to see c.s.a.t >renamed to c.s.a.programmer. Since there is no "rename" control >message; it would be nice if this vote could be tied to a >committment from users to not crossposting. Check the stats on c.s.a and c.s.a.t: c.s.a, at least, is listed with 5% crossposting. Given the relative volume, if all c.s.a crossposts were with c.s.a.t, c.s.a.t's crossposting percentage would be around 20%; but not all are. I don't think I've seen a percentage for c.s.a.t. So, you are right, but I'm not sure it's all that bad. Note that (I think) a hardware group will help that by providing an unambiguous area for one of the topics that is often crossposted out of confusion. In any case, I don't want to make this a general referendum on restructuring the comp.sys.amiga area. I >certainly< don't want to make it a rename referendum -- I want to stay far away from attempting something that the news software supports so poorly... ;-} >P.S. It would be nice if crossposting could be disabled. That is, >physically by the software at each site. :-) I disagree; sometimes there are very good reasons to crosspost. If you disable crossposting, people will post directly to multiple groups, which is worse. I don't know about your newsreading software, but mine (rn) only shows me one copy of a crossposted article. Yours may not have that property but some day it could... 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
umcharl3@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Mike Charlton) (12/20/89)
Personally, I don't think that having a new group addressing hardware
on the amiga would affect me all that much since I would probably read
both comp.sys.amiga and the proposed group. However, I can't help
thinking that a large number of people would also read both. My
question is: Would there be sufficient people who read one, but not the
other to merit the creation of another group.
Mikems361@leah.Albany.Edu (Mark Steinberger) (12/20/89)
In article <1989Dec20.011102.595@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, umcharl3@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Mike Charlton) writes: > > Personally, I don't think that having a new group addressing hardware > on the amiga would affect me all that much since I would probably read > both comp.sys.amiga and the proposed group. However, I can't help > thinking that a large number of people would also read both. My > question is: Would there be sufficient people who read one, but not the > other to merit the creation of another group. I don't know about other folks, but I'm not in the market for new hardware, so the clutter of hardware questions really detracts from my enjoyment of the group. I actually miss a lot because of the high volume: I try to read the list of articles and decide what to read. So for me it would be a great benefit to put the hardware in a different group. --Mark
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/20/89)
In article <1989Dec20.011102.595@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcharl3@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Mike Charlton) writes: > Would there be sufficient people who read one, but not the > other to merit the creation of another group. Me. I've given up on comp.sys.amiga completely. Comp.sys.amiga.tech is about my speed, but even there there's a bunch of stuff I don't want to page through every day. Splitting out the hardware discussions (with my budget, they frustrate me more than anything else) would help. And then if I was looking for hardware info I'd know where to look. In fact it seems to me that a lot of the stuff that *is* crossposted between .amiga and .amiga.tech is hardware related... because people aren't sure which group it should go in, perhaps? PS: Don't run this article through \fBnroff\fR either. -- `-_-' 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
briang@hp-sdd.hp.com (Brian Gragg) (12/20/89)
In article <1989Dec20.011102.595@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcharl3@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Mike Charlton) writes: > > Personally, I don't think that having a new group addressing hardware >on the amiga would affect me all that much since I would probably read >both comp.sys.amiga and the proposed group. However, I can't help >thinking that a large number of people would also read both. My >question is: Would there be sufficient people who read one, but not the >other to merit the creation of another group. > Mike I would generally like to read both but with the volume on c.s.a now I often can't read it all. The hardware is one aspect I could skip when I don't have time (ie. c - catch up). I think it would be very useful. Brian -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Gragg briang@sdd.hp.com hp-sdd!briang uunet!ucsd!hp-sdd!briang -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) (12/21/89)
In article <108.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us> Bela Lubkin <filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us> writes: >both 'art' and 'games' could be subsumed ('recreation' comes close but >ignores the large percentage of Amiga artists that are doing commercial >work), that group might also be worth considering. How about something like comp.sys.amiga.creative since the Amiga is the computer for the creative mind. Anything along this line would help CBM's advertising and that helps us all. > >Given a hardware group, what name is appropriate? There are really only >two choices here: comp.sys.amiga.hardware or comp.sys.amiga.hw. I could There is another choice comp.sys.amiga.tech.hardware since hardware is really a technical area is it not ??? > Purpose: discussion about Amiga computer hardware. Questions about > the purchase of new hardware; problems with existing hardware; > reviews of hardware products; modification and hacks of existing > hardware; design of new hardware. POTENTIALLY: hardware-specific > programming (or does that belong in .tech; or should it go > unmentioned so as not to encourage it?) > Please e-mail constructive responses to me and flames to /dev/NULL. I do not read news.group and have no time to add more. Monty Saine
bryce@cbmvax.commodore.com (Bryce Nesbitt) (12/21/89)
Would that be a TECHNICAL hardware group, or a user hardware group? The nane does not make this clear.
filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) (12/22/89)
In article <108.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us> I (Bela) write: >both 'art' and 'games' could be subsumed ('recreation' comes close but >ignores the large percentage of Amiga artists that are doing commercial >work), that group might also be worth considering. In article <565@sagpd1.UUCP> Monty Saine writes: > How about something like comp.sys.amiga.creative since the Amiga is > the computer for the creative mind. Anything along this line would > help CBM's advertising and that helps us all. That is a decent name. It does not address games terribly well, but I can see arguments for and against combining them anyway. Certainly those who are doing serious art would probably not appreciate being lumped with the games... I continue to believe that splitting off games and art should be done later, after the effects of splitting off hardware (assuming that happens) are understood. [Bela:] >Given a hardware group, what name is appropriate? There are really only >two choices here: comp.sys.amiga.hardware or comp.sys.amiga.hw. I could [Monty:] > There is another choice comp.sys.amiga.tech.hardware since hardware > is really a technical area is it not ??? Well, yes and no. "What is the best color printer?" is not a terribly technical question. Someone else asked [is this to be a technical or non-technical hardware group]. I say: both. It is extremely difficult to separate the discussion on these lines. "I am designing a 32-bit memory board to work with my kludged 68030 board and I am having the following problem with the DTACK line" is a technical subject for just about anyone. YOU probably think that "Will the HardFrame work with a CDC Wren V 320MB drive?" is NOT a technical subject, but it certainly is to someone who is not knowledgable about hardware. So labeling a group ".tech" doesn't separate things all that well. The total traffic of Amiga hardware discussion is low enough (at least compared to c.s.a itself) that lumping together technical and non-technical hardware discussion ought to be workable. If not -- and that will only become apparent after a few weeks or months -- a motion could be made to create a .tech or .design group specifically addressing design issues. 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
news@mikebat.UUCP (News Administration) (12/22/89)
> > Personally, I don't think that having a new group addressing hardware > >on the amiga would affect me all that much since I would probably read > >both comp.sys.amiga and the proposed group. > > ...................... The hardware is one aspect I could skip when I > don't have time (ie. c - catch up). I think it would be very useful. > I find myself on just the opposite side. I now don't get regular access to c.s.a or c.s.a.t because I can't afford the telephone time. If there were a hardware group I could subscribe just to it and get 90% of what I want anyway. -- Michael Batchelor / KA7ZNZ uunet!wshb!mikebat!michaelb Gorbachev is certainly not a Stalinist, but he is also just as certainly NOT a Jeffersonian democrat. We should examine his motives just as coldly as he is examining ours. --- Richard Nixon, Time, December 18, 1989.
peterson@FSUCS.CS.FSU.EDU (Eric J. Peterson) (12/22/89)
In article <114.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us> you write: | In article <108.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us> I (Bela) write: | >both 'art' and 'games' could be subsumed ('recreation' comes close but | >ignores the large percentage of Amiga artists that are doing commercial | >work), that group might also be worth considering. | | In article <565@sagpd1.UUCP> Monty Saine writes: | > How about something like comp.sys.amiga.creative since the Amiga is | > the computer for the creative mind. Anything along this line would | > help CBM's advertising and that helps us all. | | That is a decent name. It does not address games terribly well, but I | can see arguments for and against combining them anyway. Certainly | those who are doing serious art would probably not appreciate being | lumped with the games... | | I continue to believe that splitting off games and art should be done | later, after the effects of splitting off hardware (assuming that | happens) are understood. I see the games as using far less bandwidth than, say, the total combined traffic of graphics, sounds, animation, etc. Granted, games do include these elements. However, the comp.sys.amiga.art group should be for the game designers (in addition to the many other people out there using the Amiga for sound and graphics presentations other than games). Messages posted to it should relate to the actual technicalities of game software; typical messages such as "How do you get the key from the roadie?" or "I can't remember how to rescue the pilot" should be in a separate group. | | [Bela:] | >Given a hardware group, what name is appropriate? There are really only | >two choices here: comp.sys.amiga.hardware or comp.sys.amiga.hw. I could I vote (SMACK! NO VOTING YET! 8-) c.s.a.hardware. No point in abbreviating something that won't get typed in large quantities anyway. And besides, there are other .hardware groups ... may as well be consistent. | [Monty:] | > There is another choice comp.sys.amiga.tech.hardware since hardware | > is really a technical area is it not ??? | | Well, yes and no. "What is the best color printer?" is not a terribly | technical question. | | Someone else asked [is this to be a technical or non-technical hardware | group]. I say: both. It is extremely difficult to separate the | discussion on these lines. "I am designing a 32-bit memory board to | work with my kludged 68030 board and I am having the following problem | with the DTACK line" is a technical subject for just about anyone. YOU | probably think that "Will the HardFrame work with a CDC Wren V 320MB | drive?" is NOT a technical subject, but it certainly is to someone who | is not knowledgable about hardware. So labeling a group ".tech" | doesn't separate things all that well. | | The total traffic of Amiga hardware discussion is low enough (at least | compared to c.s.a itself) that lumping together technical and | non-technical hardware discussion ought to be workable. If not -- and | that will only become apparent after a few weeks or months -- a motion | could be made to create a .tech or .design group specifically | addressing design issues. I agree totally. Couldn't have said it better myself. There was a posting in comp.sys.amiga about also having a .a500 and a .a2000 (and presumably a .a1000 group as well, although the original suggestor seemed to have forgotten about the 1000 owners out there) newsgroup instead of .hardware. The answer to this question is along the same lines as the .tech debate -- where does one draw the line between a 500 question, a 1000 question, and a 2000 question? Granted, "What are the pin outputs on the 1000 serial port?" is a .a1000 question, but "What kind of hard disk should I get?" is of general interest to all Amiga owners (granted, there are machine specifics involved, but any of the three machines should be able to use the same physical drive using a machine-specific controller). | 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 Eric -- . |~~ Eric J. Peterson ... peterson@{cs,{nu,fsucs}.cs}.fsu.edu _O_] [ V "You cannot really know anything." -- William Payne (wpayne@digi.UUCP) _< >_ "How do you know?" -- Dan'l DanehyOakes (djo@PacBell.COM)
kpicott%alias@csri.utoronto.ca (Socrates) (12/22/89)
In article <565@sagpd1.UUCP> monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) writes: >In article <108.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us> Bela Lubkin <filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us> writes: > How about something like comp.sys.amiga.creative since the Amiga is > the computer for the creative mind. Anything along this line would > help CBM's advertising and that helps us all. > Given the profile of postings to c.s.a I would think that comp.sys.amiga.questions would split the volume quite evenly. This avoids the cooties given by .games or .recreation while not being as nebulous as .hardware or .tech.hardware. -- Kevin Picott aka Socrates aka kpicott%alias@csri.toronto.edu Alias Research Inc. R+D Toronto, Ontario... like, downtown "There can be no offense where none is taken" - Japanese proverb