michael@fts1.UUCP (Michael Richardson) (12/17/89)
In article <PNAKADA.89Dec7155652@pnakada.oracle.com> pnakada@oracle.com (Paul Nakada) writes: >newgroups, "an overdone group hierarchy." I would much rather have >an overdone group hierarchy, than none at all. What you suggest is >grouping the discussion first by its technical nature and then by its >particular hardware platform, while most groups which need additional >focus, add on to the platform grouping. > >comp.sys.amiga.tech >rec.autos.tech > >The argument could be made that the comp.binaries groups follow your >particular hierarchy, with the platform as the last grouping. This is More importantly I think -- if you want to carry/read comp.binaries, you probably have the disk space to carry one, or all. Yet you can still carry/read comp.sys.all In the case of comp.sys.amiga.tech, I can very easily subscribe to comp.sys.amiga and get all the subgroups (I'm talking sys files and -n options. What you have in your .newsrc is rn's business as far as I'm concerned.) What I'd like to see is better threading in the groups. I really like the group and group.f (although I have yet to actually _read_ one that is set up that way. I shall be reading comp.groupware, and I suspect that this might in fact belong there. [Someone correct me if I am wrong.]) -- :!mcr!: Michael C. Richardson HOME: mcr@julie.UUCP SCHOOL: mcr@doe.carleton.ca WORK: michael@fts1.UUCP I never liked staying in one place too long, but this is getting silly...