rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) (01/18/89)
In article <657@ur-cc.UUCP>, akk2@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Atul Kacker) writes: > [stuff deleted].... I think we should create another newsgroup called > comp.sys.ibm.pc.programming (or something similar). I agree this is needed. In light of existing USENET practice, I'd suggest that the new group be named comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer -- that would more nearly parallel the existing Macintosh group name. Followups should include news.groups in the distribution. This is discussion, not a call for votes. ______________________________________________________________________________ rja@edison.GE.COM or ...uunet!virginia!edison!rja via Internet (preferable) via uucp (if you must) ______________________________________________________________________________
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (01/23/89)
In article <1778@edison.GE.COM> rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) writes: >In article <657@ur-cc.UUCP>, akk2@uhura.cc.rochester.edu >(Atul Kacker) writes: > >> [stuff deleted].... I think we should create another newsgroup called >> comp.sys.ibm.pc.programming (or something similar). > >I agree this is needed. In light of existing USENET practice, I'd >suggest that the new group be named comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer -- >that would more nearly parallel the existing Macintosh group name. While suffixing ``.programmer'' is indeed an established practice with .mac as a precedent, ``.tech'' as a suffix also an older precedent (rec.autos.tech) ans has the advantage that it's shorter = less characters to type and transmit. Besides, from what I've seen in the mac (which split into .mac and .mac.programmer) and the amiga (which split into .amiga and .amiga.tech) groups, I'd say the latter makes more sense. -- Corona and foolish drinks. richard@gryphon.COM {...}!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov
seg@smsdpg.uu.net (Scott Garfinkle) (01/23/89)
From article <1778@edison.GE.COM>, by rja@edison.GE.COM (rja): > ... > I agree this is needed. In light of existing USENET practice, I'd > suggest that the new group be named comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer -- > that would more nearly parallel the existing Macintosh group name. Agreed, wholeheartedley. the sooner, the better. Scott E. Garfinkle SMS Data Products Group, Inc. uunet!smsdpg!seg (seg@smsdpg.uu.net)
psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) (01/23/89)
<"He seemed like such a nice man . . . and then he turned out to be a writer!"> > >In article <657@ur-cc.UUCP>, akk2@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Atul Kacker) suggests that we form a new subgroup of comp.sys.ibm.pc, a group which currently is too big to conveniently keep up with. > In article <1778@edison.GE.COM> rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) suggests that we call it "comp.sys.ibm.pc.programming (or something similar)." In article <11079@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > While suffixing ``.programmer'' is indeed an established practice > with .mac as a precedent, ``.tech'' as a suffix also an older > precedent (rec.autos.tech) and has the advantage that it's > shorter = less characters to type and transmit. (and sites the Mac and Amiga groups as examples). >richard@gryphon.COM ...!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov I think splitting off the programming stuff would be a great benefit. It's also possible that having a separate "technical" (but not programming) group would make the whole thing more manageable. There is the danger that some information would be considered both general and technical (e.g., "What's a good RLL controller/hard disk combination?"), or technical and programming ("What's the interrupt for joystick control?"). We want to discourage cross posting. (Do we really want another ".questions" vs. ".wizards" fiasco?) I recommend that we spawn a subgroup specifically related to progamming the IBM PC and compatibles, called comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer. I also suggest we consider having a technical subgroup on non-programming issues, called comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech. I think that the former will discourage cross-posting more than the latter. (In fact, having written this article, I think maybe ".tech" won't solve our problems much at all!) Paul S. R. Chisholm, psrc@pegasus.att.com (formerly psc@lznv.att.com) AT&T Bell Laboratories, att!pegasus!psrc, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (01/25/89)
In article <1778@edison.GE.COM> rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) writes: +-------------------- |[...] |I agree this is needed. In light of existing USENET practice, I'd |suggest that the new group be named comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer -- |that would more nearly parallel the existing Macintosh group name. +-------------------- I agree this is needed. In light of existing USENET practice, I'd suggest that the new group be named comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech -- that would more nearly parallel the existing Amiga group name. (Also less typing for "postnews" usage 8^) |______________________________________________________________________________ | rja@edison.GE.COM or ...uunet!virginia!edison!rja | via Internet (preferable) via uucp (if you must) |______________________________________________________________________________ Cheers, -- _ _/\ Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. \`o O| Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu \(")/ BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET ---mm-U-mm--- "Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue" - Oliver North