sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) (11/22/89)
I see nowhere in the article why rec.video can't be used for software as well as hardware. What I mean is that nothing in the article said that there were a lot of postings about software and the hardware people were getting tired of it. Things like that. Since we don't get rec.video there very well may be a good reason for rec.video.software but I can't see a good reason from the posting. -- Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur.uucp!aqdata!sullivan aQdata, Inc. San Dimas, CA
kanefsky@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Steve Kanefsky) (11/22/89)
In article <1989Nov21.170126.7027@aqdata.uucp> sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: >I see nowhere in the article why rec.video can't be used for software >as well as hardware. What I mean is that nothing in the article said >that there were a lot of postings about software and the hardware >people were getting tired of it. Things like that. Since we don't >get rec.video there very well may be a good reason for rec.video.software >but I can't see a good reason from the posting. I don't see any reason why the only criterion for group creation should be that some other group is overflowing. I believe in this case that the people who should be holding the discussion are scattered around in different groups (especially rec.video and rec.arts.movies). Sometimes, there is a lot of interest in a subject but just no group that is appropriate, so there isn't much discussion. Granted, some discussion has occurred in rec.video, but rec.video has become much more of a forum for hardware discussion, and I'm sure many people don't post software questions there because they feel it is inappropriate. Anyway, the number of postings in rec.video *is* growing, and there is definately a lot of interest in splitting it somehow, it's just a matter of which way it is split up. Some people have suggested splitting along format lines (e.g. a separate laserdisc newsgroup) or splitting the camcorder traffic away from the rest, but I feel that this wouldn't be as workable as splitting the software traffic for the following reasons: * The various hardware divisions all have a lot to gain from each other, and many of the questions are similar whether you're talking about VHS, Beta, Laserdisc, camcorders, or whatever. * Most if not all of the people to whom one might wish to address a hardware question are already reading rec.video, while many people to whom one might wish to address a software question don't read rec.video. * Hardware distinctions are fuzzier than the hardware/software distinction. Formats are always evolving and changing and the question of which group would be appropriate for a given topic becomes hard to answer. Clearly, home video isn't going to go away, and thus video software isn't either. If one looks at the precedent set by rec.music.cd, one sees that a group like this could work for video too. -- Steve Kanefsky kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu