[comp.sys.amiga.tech] New newsgroups

gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) (06/14/90)

I think that it would be a good idea to start a few new Amiga newsgroups.
How about

comp.sys.amiga.comm    (communications things: Ethernet, TCP, DNET, NFS, etc)
comp.sys.amiga.os      ( OS topics, Multitasking, scheduling algorithms, etc)
comp.sys.amiga.graphics  (you get the idea)

This would help ease the load of reading since comp.sys.amiga seems to
be a catch all right now.

			Thanks, Ralph

 
gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu       gilgalad@zip.eecs.umich.edu
gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu     Ralph_Seguin@ub.cc.umich.edu
gilgalad@sparky.eecs.umich.edu    USER6TUN@UMICHUB.BITNET

Ralph Seguin               |  In order to get infinitely many monkeys to type
565 South Zeeb Rd.         | something that actually makes sense, you need to
Ann Arbor, MI 48103        | have infinitely many monkey editors as well.
(313) 662-1506

UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) (06/14/90)

In article <2633@zipeecs.umich.edu>, gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin)
says:
>
>I think that it would be a good idea to start a few new Amiga newsgroups.
>How about
>
>comp.sys.amiga.comm    (communications things: Ethernet, TCP, DNET, NFS, etc)
>comp.sys.amiga.os      ( OS topics, Multitasking, scheduling algorithms, etc)
>comp.sys.amiga.graphics  (you get the idea)
>

Here's a good strategy for creating new groups.  Try to identify some topic
that is intensely interesting to the people who contribute to it, yet
uninteresting to many others.  Split that topic out as a new group.

Personally, though I agree that c.s.a gets a lot of traffic, I don't see
any topic that I would categorically skip.  I don't read c.s.a.hardware,
though, or c.s.a.games.  Those subgroups worked good for me.

                                                            lee

chymes@fribourg.csmil.umich.edu (Charles Hymes) (06/14/90)

In article <2633@zipeecs.umich.edu> gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) writes:
>I think that it would be a good idea to start a few new Amiga newsgroups.
>How about
>
>comp.sys.amiga.comm    (communications things: Ethernet, TCP, DNET, NFS, etc)
>comp.sys.amiga.os      ( OS topics, Multitasking, scheduling algorithms, etc)
>comp.sys.amiga.graphics  (you get the idea)
>
>This would help ease the load of reading since comp.sys.amiga seems to
>be a catch all right now.
>
>			Thanks, Ralph
> 
>gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu       gilgalad@zip.eecs.umich.edu
>gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu     Ralph_Seguin@ub.cc.umich.edu
>gilgalad@sparky.eecs.umich.edu    USER6TUN@UMICHUB.BITNET
>
>Ralph Seguin               |  In order to get infinitely many monkeys to type

I think it would be a very bad idea to start more amiga newsgroups.
The porblem Ralph, is that many of us would have to convice reluctant sysops to 
accept these new amiga newsgroups. It took me months of haggling just to get 
comp.sys.amiga. Every new newsgroup would just be that much Amiga info that alot
of people would miss out on. In your instance, alot of people would never be able 
to post or read stuff on communcations things, OS topics and or Amiga graphics.
I also thing that these technical/SIG news groups would waste alot of bandwidth,
because whenever there was an interaction between groups, say .comm and .graphics
for X11 or .graphics and .os for screen interupts, there would be a lot of logical
cross posting.

Yes, comp.sys.amiga gets alot of different articles. But we can just list the 
headers and skip the ones we don't want to read. This is a small inconvienience 
compared to greatly reduceing the distribution of Amiga Info and wasting 
bandwidth. Three for one little computer is enough.

Charlweed Hymerfan (A Major Dude) 

martens@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) (06/16/90)

In article <2633@zipeecs.umich.edu> gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) writes:

>I think that it would be a good idea to start a few new Amiga newsgroups.
>How about

>comp.sys.amiga.comm    (communications things: Ethernet, TCP, DNET, NFS, etc)
>comp.sys.amiga.os      ( OS topics, Multitasking, scheduling algorithms, etc)
>comp.sys.amiga.graphics  (you get the idea)

I'm not sure the OS group would bleed that much off, or even be well
defined in the mind of Joe User.  Maybe the graphics group should be
called "video" or somesuch.

>This would help ease the load of reading since comp.sys.amiga seems to
>be a catch all right now.

Another thing that would be nice would be if people would start
actually using comp.sys.amiga.games.  There's still a lot of game
stuff cluttering comp.sys.amiga.
-=-
-- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu)

Chemlawn, trademark, suburban distributor of toxic chemicals.