kpc00@ccc.amdahl.com (Kimball P Collins) (06/29/90)
This looks like a useful newsgroup, but there are a lot of articles on
different kinds of topics.
Perhaps we can split the group?
Maybe:
o Motif
o general X discussion
o future X versions
o Xt
o Xlib
o other libraries
Maybe that is too many? What do you think?
--
Neither representing Amdahl nor necessarily myself.zinnato@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL (R. Zinnato) (06/29/90)
>This looks like a useful newsgroup, but there are a lot of articles on >different kinds of topics. > >Perhaps we can split the group? > >Maybe: > > o Motif > o general X discussion > o future X versions > o Xt > o Xlib > o other libraries > >Maybe that is too many? What do you think? C'mon y'all, didn't we go through this before? There is already another group for Motif-specific questions. (actually it's a mailing list, and I think you have to actually *buy* the right to be on it...) And the biggest problem is that not everybody contributing to these groups is a subscriber to "news". A lot of us don't have access to this service and get all the stuff sent to us thru the mail via xpert. Believe me, it's just as much a pain for me to sift thru anywhere from 50 to 75 mail messages a day, but I'd rather do that than be left off a "new newsgroup" and perhaps miss something that I may need. Unless of course *you* want to volunteer to be in charge of setting up all of the mail gateways for all of these new groups...
ac1@chive.cs.reading.ac.uk (Andrew Cunningham) (07/01/90)
In article <92N402sN01Qr01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kpc00@JUTS.uts.amdahl.com (Kimball P Collins) writes: >This looks like a useful newsgroup, but there are a lot of articles on >different kinds of topics. True >Perhaps we can split the group? I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, but it seems like a good idea to me. >Maybe: > > o Motif > o general X discussion > o future X versions > o Xt > o Xlib > o other libraries > This seems like *one* good division. I think the traffic is large enough to warrant splitting comp.windows.x. Based on my experince reading c.w.x I think that just to split the group as r3/r4/general (c.w.x.r3, c.w.x.r4, and c.w.x) would be sufficient to minimize the amount of irrelevant (to me) stuff I have to wade through every day. Any comments? (flames > /dev/null). Yours etc, | e-mail: ac1@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk Captain B.J. Smethwick |------------------------------------------ in a white wine sauce with | Nobody agrees with my opinions, though shallots, mushrooms and garlic. | everybody is entitled to them.