peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/15/89)
While we're talking about global changes in newsgroups, how about pre-empting
a whole load of debate and discussion and creating all the missing misc
groups. Comp is pretty well misced out: comp.org.misc is the only slot
not filled, and I don't think I could make a good case for it even if I
was so inclinde. But:
news.software.misc I know C-news is B-news compatible, but there will
be others. Besides, anu news is B-compatible as well.
I think the important factor is the overall software
design, not what it interoperates with. C-news is
very little like B-news internally.
rec.food.misc This is pretty quiet, what with rec.food.cooking, but
it *is* an open slot. Low priority at most.
rec.models.misc We have .rc, and a demand for .rocket. How about
making a rec.models.misc (or rec.models) to keep
this from turning into a hydra? This is probably
the most obvious and important of these changes.
rec.music.misc I know this exists, but it's really a rock group.
Creating a rec.music.rock would make this usable
for people who don't fit elsewhere. Certainly there
is existing volume!
soc.rights.misc Animal rights are the obvious thing to shove in
here, but I'm sure there are plenty of folks who
have other ideas. Call it a pre-emptive strike.
--
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
'U`
Quote: Structured Programming is a discipline -- not a straitjacket.tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/15/89)
In <6532@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
Peter> news.software.misc I know C-news is B-news compatible,
Peter> but there will be others. Besides, anu news is
Peter> B-compatible as well. I think the important
Peter> factor is the overall software design, not
Peter> what it interoperates with. C-news is very
Peter> little like B-news internally.
A proposal was brought up a few months ago to create news.software and
rmgroup news.software.b. Everytime I post a message to news.software.b
I still think it is a good idea. Not even a .misc group, just a
vanilla news.software. Are there any strong arguments against this?
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/15/89)
>A proposal was brought up a few months ago to create news.software and >rmgroup news.software.b. Everytime I post a message to news.software.b >I still think it is a good idea. Not even a .misc group, just a >vanilla news.software. Are there any strong arguments against this? Actually, the whole idea of the *.misc groups was to get the traffic out of the base name, the idea being that all of the subgroups should be at the same level in the heirarchy. I don't remember who brought it up, but I've always felt it was overkill, except at the top level (you don't want someone posting to comp, you want them posting to comp.misc). It's never really been enforced or dealt with consistently -- if it were, we should have rmgrouped comp.sys.mac long ago for comp.sys.mac.misc. my feeling is that *.misc is overkill and you might as well leave it in the parent group (i.e. news.software as opposed to news.software.misc). A clean name space is good (adopt that one for your mantra, folks...), but there's such a thing as pushing the theory to the detriment of reality. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about group names doesn't understand the system.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/15/89)
What's the difference between creating a 'news.software' and a
'news.software.misc'? I've always been fuzzy on these inbetween
groups.
--
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
'U`
Quote: Structured Programming is a discipline -- not a straitjacket.dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (10/15/89)
In article <35660@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Actually, the whole idea of the *.misc groups was to get the traffic out of >the base name, the idea being that all of the subgroups should be at the >same level in the heirarchy. I wonder why that was considered A Good Thing. It seems kind of contradictory to a hierarchical structure. Logically, the function served by .misc groups is more general that that of a subgroup. >I don't remember who brought it up, but I've >always felt it was overkill, except at the top level (you don't want someone >posting to comp, you want them posting to comp.misc). Here you've lost me, Chuq. What makes the top level different from any other level? Why *not* use comp instead of comp.misc? >Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about >group names doesn't understand the system. Right, and who does "understand the system"? The way you understand it and the way others understand differ, in general. Who's to say which is "right"? -- Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/16/89)
>Here you've lost me, Chuq. What makes the top level different from >any other level? Why *not* use comp instead of comp.misc? Partly technological -- you don't want to clutter the root of your top-level domain with lots and lots of inodes. It'd be inefficient. I also think you want to avoid putting messages at the root of a domain. you want to farm them into the tree somewhere. >>Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about >>group names doesn't understand the system. >Right, and who does "understand the system"? Well, I do, for one. After all these years, I better... >The way you understand >it and the way others understand differ, in general. Who's to say >which is "right"? History says who is right. And experience is what helps people understand what's likely to be reasonable. You can't expect to understand USENET unless you know why it is the way it is and how it got that way. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about group names doesn't understand the system.
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (10/16/89)
In article <35668@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about > group names doesn't understand the system. O. K. Fine. I don't understand. What exactly IS the point? I have never been able to discern any system in the "namespace hierarchy" other than most talk about computer stuff is in comp.* and news.*. Is the hierarchy of any use at all? In what way is it better than arbitrary group names?
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (10/17/89)
>>Here you've lost me, Chuq. What makes the top level different from >>any other level? Why *not* use comp instead of comp.misc? In article <35668@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Partly technological -- you don't want to clutter the root of your top-level >domain with lots and lots of inodes. It'd be inefficient. There's another reason. inews/rnews treats groups with no dots in the name as purely local groups; they won't be forwarded to other machines, and rnews strips their names from the Newsgroups: line. -- -- Joe Buck, just visiting/consulting at Entropic -- write me at: jbuck@janus.berkeley.edu ...!{uunet,ucbvax}!janus.berkeley.edu!jbuck
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (10/17/89)
news.groups's own peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) said:
-
-rec.music.misc I know this exists, but it's really a rock group.
- Creating a rec.music.rock would make this usable
- for people who don't fit elsewhere. Certainly there
- is existing volume!
But there's no way to determine a good name. Misc is a good way of covering
all kinds of music that some consider rock; from heavy metal to 70's
progressive to punk to Buddy Holly to modern top-40. You create r.m.rock,
you create "that doesn't belong here" flames.
But we've discussed this 7 ways from Sunday. Unless I see a call for this
again, I'm not going to get into this discussion.
to the relief of many, i'm sure
--
David Bedno aka davidbe@sco.COM: Speaking from but not for SCO.
"The benefits of being a man"? Personally, I think it's a fair trade,
the ability to cry for urinating standing up. - membio@ucscb.ucscc.eduwelty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (10/18/89)
In article <6532@ficc.uu.net>, Peter da Silva writes:
about some easy namespace cleanups.
*news.software.misc I know C-news is B-news compatible, but there will
* be others. Besides, anu news is B-compatible as well.
* I think the important factor is the overall software
* design, not what it interoperates with. C-news is
* very little like B-news internally.
good idea. i still don't understand why Bill Wisner's vote for
news.software failed; i voted yes then and i'd vote yes again.
*rec.models.misc We have .rc, and a demand for .rocket. How about
* making a rec.models.misc (or rec.models) to keep
* this from turning into a hydra? This is probably
* the most obvious and important of these changes.
i agree very much. i'd even volunteer to run a vote for either
rec.models or rec.models.misc.
note that i agree that there isn't much difference between
foo.bar and foo.bar.misc as group names; the namespace is
already totally confused on this score anyway; we have
rec.autos, rec.autos.tech, and rec.autos.sport on the one
hand, and rec.sports.misc, rec.sports.basketball, and so
forth on the other. i'd just soon see rec.models and
news.software created without the .misc, but i wouldn't
vote no if we wanted to go the other way.
anyway, i think i'll start discussion on rec.models in the
very near future.
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
..!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.comdavid@indetech.com (David Kuder) (10/19/89)
In <6532@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: Peter>news.software.misc I know C-news is B-news compatible, but there Peter> will be others. Besides, anu news is B-compatible as well. I Peter> think the important factor is the overall software design, not Peter> what it interoperates with. C-news is very little like B-news Peter> internally. In article <1989Oct15.020043.12669@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: >A proposal was brought up a few months ago to create news.software and >rmgroup news.software.b. Everytime I post a message to news.software.b I >still think it is a good idea. Not even a .misc group, just a vanilla >news.software. Are there any strong arguments against this? Only the old ones about the momentum of the net will make such a change impossible. I don't believe them. I think the change to news.software from news.software.b is desirable. I think the attempt to shake the name hierarchy is worthwhile. I mean I lived through a bigger shake up yesterday, I think the net can survive one little name change. -- David A. Kuder Comp.lang.perl, the time is now! 415 438-2003 david@indetech.com {uunet,sun,sharkey,pacbell}!indetech!david
sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) (10/22/89)
David Bedno (davidbe@sco.COM) writes: >news.groups's own peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) said: >- >-rec.music.misc I know this exists, but it's really a rock group. >- Creating a rec.music.rock would make this usable >- for people who don't fit elsewhere. Certainly there >- is existing volume! > >But there's no way to determine a good name. Misc is a good way of covering >all kinds of music that some consider rock; from heavy metal to 70's >progressive to punk to Buddy Holly to modern top-40. You create r.m.rock, >you create "that doesn't belong here" flames. That's so right. Rec.music.misc is a really miscealleous group. Yes, the emphasis is on rock, but jazz, new-age or whatever such postings are welcome. What? They have own newsgroups? But that doesn't say that they are a no-no in rec.music.misc. Creating a group to relieve another from traffic is not a good idea. I tried this with rec.music.cd and what happened? Did all the "is X out on CD?" disappear from r.m.misc? No, rather they are more of them now. Creating r.m.rock wouldn't leave r.m.misc a quiet place, rather rock posting would then appear in three places. (R.m.misc, r.m.rock and alt.rock-n-roll.) Doesn't sound like a clean name space to me. And the golden question: what is rock'n'roll and what is not? (Please, don't answer.) >But we've discussed this 7 ways from Sunday. Unless I see a call for this >again, I'm not going to get into this discussion. That's right. We even voted once. The outcome was lame. 91-30 or so. Peter has some good ideas, but this is not one of them. Let's stop beating dead horses. -- Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se "My baby's a 26. On a scale from one to ten, my baby's a 26." - Chic