boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) (04/15/88)
In article <1485@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> creps@silver (Steve Creps) writes: > > It seems that this group is becoming more and more cluttered, in my >opinion, with postings that are discussions that are more political, >or gripes about customer service, "where can I get...," discussions on >piracy, and so forth, and fewer techinical questions. Personally I'm >getting bored to death with all the non-technical questions. > This is not a new group proposal YET, so don't send me any votes yet, >but how would people feel about a new ibm group for technical questions >only? It could be called comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech. Let's get some discussion >on this and see if a call for votes is justified. > >- - - - - - - - - - >Steve Creps, Indiana University, Bloomington, "home of the Hoosiers" > creps@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (192.12.206.2) > {pur-ee,ihnp4!inuxc,rutgers,pyramid}!iuvax!silver!creps > creps@iubacs.bitnet (forwarded) [I've cross posted this to news.groups, where it should also appear. -B] It seems you forget that a new group has already been proposed, and voting is about to close. It is for comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d, designed to relieve comp.sys from the postings about binaries, and comp.binaries from non-binary postings (which will no longer be possible, as soon as Rahul takes his place as moderator). Wait until this is done, and see about traffic through comp.sys, and if it is still to much, then propose a new group. ============================================================================ Brian O'Neill, MS-DOS Software Exchange Coordinator ArpaNet: boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu UUCP : {(backbones),harvard,rutgers,et. al.}!ulowell!hawk!boneill
tr@wind.bellcore.com (tom reingold) (04/16/88)
In article <1485@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> creps@silver (Steve Creps) writes: $ $ It seems that this group is becoming more and more cluttered, in my $ opinion, with postings that are discussions that are more political, $ or gripes about customer service, "where can I get...," discussions on $ piracy, and so forth, and fewer techinical questions. Personally I'm $ getting bored to death with all the non-technical questions. $ This is not a new group proposal YET, so don't send me any votes yet, $ but how would people feel about a new ibm group for technical questions $ only? It could be called comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech. Let's get some discussion $ on this and see if a call for votes is justified. In article <6237@swan.ulowell.edu> boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) writes: $ [I've cross posted this to news.groups, where it should also appear. -B] $ $ It seems you forget that a new group has already been proposed, and voting $ is about to close. It is for comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d, designed to relieve $ comp.sys from the postings about binaries, and comp.binaries from non-binary $ postings (which will no longer be possible, as soon as Rahul takes his place $ as moderator). Wait until this is done, and see about traffic through $ comp.sys, and if it is still to much, then propose a new group. This may sound ridiculous, but I think it has its merits. Feel free to bash it for the lousy idea you think it is. Ok, I know you won't hesitate to do so :-) . . . The people in comp.binaries.ibm.pc who dare to post text there (and I am not one of them) are asking for a discussion group. The people in comp.sys.ibm.pc want to have a technical group. The traffic volume in the latter group suggests that we may want to have a "news" group to talk about the sort of gossip found in PC Week. One person suggested having comp.sys.ibm.pc.news. I like this idea better than changing comp.sys.ibm.pc to comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech because that's what comp.sys.ibm.pc is supposed to be. In fact, that's what all comp.* groups are supposed to be. My proposal is to have the following four groups: 1. comp.sys.ibm.pc (for technical talk) 2. comp.sys.ibm.pc.news (for microsoft bashing, etc.) 3. comp.binaries.ibm.pc (for binary file distribution - moderated) 4. comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d (for discussion and documents pertaining to the binary files posted to group number 3. If the idea of Microsoft bashing sounds like a waste of bandwidth, it's really a joke. But there are many discussions around about the ethics of copy protection, copyrights, shareware, etc., whose volume warrants a newsgroup. Furthermore, I rarely read them and think I speak for many people when I say I wish comp.sys.ibm.pc were devoted to PC programming tips and usage tips for packaged software, etc. One disadvantage I see to my proposal is that with more newsgroups, it becomes unclear, especially to neophites, as to where to post what. This would result in meta-discussions of the variety, "Don't post THAT topic to THIS newsgroup." And by the way, I never post things like that. I really don't think they help, even though their content is usually right. If I feel that strongly, I send the poor sucker private mail. He'll get the point. I don't think I can take on the task of "educating the public" since the turnover on the net is very large. Tom Reingold PAPERNET: |INTERNET: tr@bellcore.bellcore.com Bell Communications Research |UUCP-NET: bellcore!tr 445 South St room 2L350 |SOUNDNET: (201) 829-4622 [work], Morristown, NJ 07960-1910 | (201) 287-2345 [home]
ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) (04/23/88)
In article <6237@swan.ulowell.edu> (SoftXc Coordinator) writes: >In article <1485@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> creps@silver (Steve Creps) writes: >> >> [proposal for comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech ] >> > >It seems you forget that a new group has already been proposed, and voting >is about to close. It is for comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d, designed to relieve >comp.sys from the postings about binaries, and comp.binaries from non-binary >postings (which will no longer be possible, as soon as Rahul takes his place >as moderator). Wait until this is done, and see about traffic through >comp.sys, and if it is still to much, then propose a new group. > I disagree here. There is little in comp.sys.ibm.pc that would disappear into comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d. The new group is only going to clean up .binaries. Once again, yes to splitting comp.sys.ibm.pc. I previously posted: dont talk, just vote YES. This was less than sensible! We need a well thought out structure here to categorize the overwhelming volume in comp.sys.ibm.pc. How about ".hw", ".dos", ".applications" and ".misc"? Ray Dunn. ..{philabs, mnetor}!micomvax!ray