edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) (12/19/89)
In article <8912150301.AA22354@uunet.uu.net> Peter da Silva <peter%ficc@uunet.UU.NET> writes: >I think it's long past time for a ".tech" group for the IBM-PC. The need >is great enough that alt.msdos.programmer has been created, but as an alt >group it has restricted distribution, and many people just don't know >about it. If you want to create a technical group for MSDOS hackers, call it comp.os.msdos. There are lots of technical issues concerning the IBM PC and decendents which have nothing to do with MSDOS. These include hardware and low-level programming. In fact, I would like to see a group such as comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech explicitly exclude OS issues (outside of those sorts of questions which arise in the implementation of an OS). -Ed Hall edhall@rand.org
tlimonce@drunivac.uucp (12/19/89)
In article <8912150301.AA22354@uunet.uu.net>, peter%ficc@uunet.UU.NET (Peter da Silva) writes: > The name of the group is not fixed in concrete: there are likely to be > people who think that ".tech" is inappropriate, and will suggest > ".programmer" (like comp.sys.mac) or some other variant. I'm not married > to any name, and I'll stay out of any such discussion. If there isn't a > clear consensus before the call for votes I'll hold an STV poll on the > name simultaneously. As someone that reads comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.tech, I would like to warn you that the ".tech" name is ambiguous enough to encourage every user to crosspost every message, thereby making one big super-group. I recommend ".programmer". IMHO, -Tom --- Don't use "reply", site "drunivac.uucp" isn't on the maps yet. Use these 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."
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/20/89)
In article <1989Dec19.021727.667@rand.org> edhall@ives.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes: > If you want to create a technical group for MSDOS hackers, call it > comp.os.msdos. I don't necessarily want to create a technical group for MS-DOS hackers. In fact, I mainly want to create a group for... > technical issues concerning > the IBM PC and decendents which have nothing to do with MSDOS. I merely referenced alt.msdos.programmer because it's been frequently brought up by people complaining about IBM-PC postings in comp.lang.c. > In fact, I > would like to see a group such as comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech explicitly > exclude OS issues (outside of those sorts of questions which arise in > the implementation of an OS). By all means, call for comp.os.msdos. I'm not going to. To begin with, the name is against my religion (:->). If people think that ms-dos specific stuff should be directed elsewhere by the charter, let me know. Since there isn't any such somewhere in the mainstream news system as it stands, I'd like to avoid that. -- `-_-' 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) (12/20/89)
In article <27260.258db235@drunivac.uucp> tlimonce@drunivac.uucp writes: > As someone that reads comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.tech, I would > like to warn you that the ".tech" name is ambiguous enough to > encourage every user to crosspost every message, thereby making one > big super-group. Possibly. I read comp.sys.amiga.tech and have dropped comp.sys.amiga, and the noise level in my head from bogus postings has been reduced to an acceptable level. For me, the .tech group is working just fine. Not that I've any objection to whoever is calling for comp.sys.amiga .hardware. > I recommend ".programmer". I'll take it under advisement. PS: Don't \fBnroff\fR this message. :-> -- `-_-' 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
jeuck@unix.SRI.COM (Philip Jeuck) (12/20/89)
In article <7364@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1989Dec19.021727.667@rand.org> edhall@ives.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes: >> If you want to create a technical group for MSDOS hackers, call it >> comp.os.msdos. > >I don't necessarily want to create a technical group for MS-DOS hackers. >In fact, I mainly want to create a group for... > >> technical issues concerning >> the IBM PC and decendents which have nothing to do with MSDOS. Maybe I'm a little slow, but I don't understand what the content of this proposed group will be. I'm all in favor of breaking up comp.sys.ibm.pc - it has way too high of volume but I would like to know which part your proposing to break out. So far, from the other comments, I think nobodies quite sure what it is. How 'bout some specifics or some examples? Phil Jeuck jeuck@unix.sri.com
billd@fps.com (Bill Davids_on) (12/21/89)
In article <8912150301.AA22354@uunet.uu.net> Peter da Silva <peter%ficc@uunet.UU.NET> writes: >There is a growing tendency for people with IBM-PC specific problems to >post them to comp.lang.c, because the noise level in comp.sys.ibm.pc is >too high for them to have any reasonable expectation of receiving any >response. Occasionally they even get a response. But this has made me >aware of the lamentable condition of comp.sys.ibm.pc... They've been invading comp.graphics in a big way too. There's a 100 times as many VGA postings as all other hardware specific postings combined. >I think it's long past time for a ".tech" group for the IBM-PC. The need >is great enough that alt.msdos.programmer has been created, but as an alt >group it has restricted distribution, and many people just don't know >about it. I'm not sure about this .tech thing. Certainly, comp.sys.ibm.pc should be broken up. Traffic is averaging around 82 articles per day right now. It could be split into .hardware, .software, .programmer and maybe a comp.os.msdos. The desire to look elsewhere would hopefully be cut down. --Bill Davidson
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/22/89)
In article <7069@unix.SRI.COM> jeuck@unix.sri.com (Philip Jeuck) writes: > Maybe I'm a little slow, but I don't understand what the content of > this proposed group will be. Technical issues concering the IBM-PC. Along the lines of "how do you talk to the serial port from Turbo-Algol-3.0" or "How do I modify the Frobozz-6 motherboard to add 9 Femtosecond static RAM" rather than "Has anyone beaten the fourth level of PC-Larn version 8" or "Which spreadsheet is most useful for a dental office". > it has way too high of volume but I would like to > know which part your proposing to break out. Depends on the group that gets created. But mainly the sort of hard-line techy stuff that tends to leak into comp.lang.c and comp.arch. -- `-_-' 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