ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) (02/13/91)
Wow, there seems to be more and more messages posted daily to comp.sys.next, half of which I am not interested in. How about a call for votes on spliting the bboard into subgroups of the more common type of postings. I suggest: comp.sys.next.apps comp.sys.next.hardware comp.sys.next.music comp.sys.next.mach(or unix) comp.sys.next.networking comp.sys.next.programming Does any one else have any suggestions?
cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu (Chuck Herrick) (02/13/91)
In article <EbiAXsa00UzxI4eqRg@andrew.cmu.edu> ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) writes:
Wow, there seems to be more and more messages posted daily to
comp.sys.next, half of which I am not interested in. How about a call
for votes on spliting the bboard into subgroups of the more common type
of postings.
I suggest:
comp.sys.next.apps
comp.sys.next.hardware
comp.sys.next.music
comp.sys.next.mach(or unix)
comp.sys.next.networking
comp.sys.next.programming
Does any one else have any suggestions?
I suggest:
comp.sys.next.keyboards
comp.sys.next.macEmulator
comp.sys.next.Xwindows
comp.sys.next.clickToType
comp.sys.next.mouseType
and of course,
comp.sys.next.theRestOfUs
--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and are in no way attributed
to any of the many people for whom I work. Who they are is irrelevant.anderson@dogie.macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) (02/13/91)
In article <EbiAXsa00UzxI4eqRg@andrew.cmu.edu> ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) writes: >comp.sys.next.apps >comp.sys.next.hardware >comp.sys.next.music >comp.sys.next.mach(or unix) >comp.sys.next.networking >comp.sys.next.programming >Does any one else have any suggestions? Just one: too many and *way* too soon. Your 'n' key will work just fine for the things that don't interest you. <> To his dog, every man is Napoleon; hence the constant <> popularity of dogs. -- Aldous Huxley -- Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (02/13/91)
In article <EbiAXsa00UzxI4eqRg@andrew.cmu.edu> ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) writes:
Wow, there seems to be more and more messages posted daily to
comp.sys.next, half of which I am not interested in. How about a call
for votes on spliting the bboard into subgroups of the more common type
of postings.
I suggest:
comp.sys.next.apps
comp.sys.next.hardware
comp.sys.next.music
comp.sys.next.mach(or unix)
comp.sys.next.networking
comp.sys.next.programming
Does any one else have any suggestions?
I don't think we need that many groups yet. comp.sys.next.misc could
handle the traffic in a few of these groups.
-Mikemcgrant@elaine25.stanford.edu (Michael Grant) (02/13/91)
In article <EbiAXsa00UzxI4eqRg@andrew.cmu.edu> ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) writes: >Wow, there seems to be more and more messages posted daily to >comp.sys.next, half of which I am not interested in. How about a call >for votes on spliting the bboard into subgroups of the more common type >of postings. > >I suggest: > >comp.sys.next.apps >comp.sys.next.hardware >comp.sys.next.music >comp.sys.next.mach(or unix) >comp.sys.next.networking >comp.sys.next.programming > >Does any one else have any suggestions? I suggest you leave things the way they are. In my opinion, this newsgroup just doesn't have the bandwidth to be split up, and plenty of us are interested in all of the issues. Sure, I have to wade through messages I'm not interested in, but pressing 'k' doesn't seem to take too long, and if it takes too much time for you, perhaps you need to start building a kill file or something. No, until this newsgroup really takes off, I'm a vote for leaving it the way it is--'unbroke'. Michael C. Grant
farrar@Neon.Stanford.EDU (David S. Farrar) (02/13/91)
I would suggest the following: make comp.sys.next.mach into comp.sys.next.os (to reflect the role both mach and unix play) and also add: comp.sys.next.graphics This last group will probably really get started when the color NeXTs come out. There will probably be a lot of discussion there that wouldn't cleanly fit in other groups. Just suggestions, of course...
gfankhau@iiic.ethz.ch (Georg Fankhauser) (02/13/91)
another suggestion: we need a clear separation between user, system and developer stuff. comp.sys.next.user (for /Apps ...) comp.sys.next.programmer comp.sys.next.sysadm (instead of network) wouldn't that be enough? -- gf
barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) (02/14/91)
In article <EbiAXsa00UzxI4eqRg@andrew.cmu.edu> ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) writes: >How about a call >for votes on spliting the bboard into subgroups of the more common type >of postings. > >comp.sys.next.apps >comp.sys.next.hardware >comp.sys.next.music >comp.sys.next.mach(or unix) >comp.sys.next.networking >comp.sys.next.programming I agree its time for a split---but how about a sequence of bifurcations as needed, rather than splintering all at once. The first bifurcation, it seems, would be comp.sys.next.technical_aspects_of_apps,_system_admin_and_hardware comp.sys.next.general_discussions_of_next_related_issues although I think the naming requires a bit more work.:-) All the OS,GUI,Editor,Computer,Keyboard,Mouse-wars could go in the latter, as well as the ``Should I buy a Next'' type queries. Anyway, I say split now! comp.sys.next is getting ~ 100 posts a day, and this number will grow like N^2, where N is the number of next users on the net (since posts represent N people interacting with eachother---roughly an N^2 effect). -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) (02/14/91)
In article <24674@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> gfankhau@iiic.ethz.ch (George Fankhauser) writes: > >comp.sys.next.user (for /Apps ...) >comp.sys.next.programmer >comp.sys.next.sysadm (instead of network) > >wouldn't that be enough? No, I think you need at least one group aimed mainly at miscellaneous discussion---that is roughly a third of the content of the current group, and the source of most of the pointless threads, like "my OS is better than your GUI" (or whatever). I think those are good groups, though maybe .user -> .apps, and add a .talk or .discuss. As far as folks who want to wait to split: if you believe NeXT is going to be succesful, then you know a split is inevitable, just as for mac, amiga, sun, pc, etc. We may as well do it just prior to the flood of NeXT deliveries over the next 6 months---traffic is already heavy enough to give a good representation of the various class of posts. Soon I think people will be begging for a comp.sys.next.group_splitting_proposals as the N^2 effect kicks in :-) -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
ddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio) (02/14/91)
In article <24674@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> gfankhau@iiic.ethz.ch (George Fankhauser) writes: >comp.sys.next.user (for /Apps ...) >comp.sys.next.programmer >comp.sys.next.sysadm (instead of network) This one I like. I'd still read all three, but I like the separation anyway. -- DdJ
news@NeXT.COM (news) (02/14/91)
In article <11936@pt.cs.cmu.edu> ddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio) writes: > In article <24674@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> gfankhau@iiic.ethz.ch (George Fankhauser) writes: > >comp.sys.next.user (for /Apps ...) > >comp.sys.next.programmer > >comp.sys.next.sysadm (instead of network) > > This one I like. I'd still read all three, but I like the separation > anyway. > -- > DdJ I like it too (my personal opinion, not NeXT's). I like to stay close to user issues but have trouble keeping up with all the postings. Chris MacAskill cmac@next.com
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (02/14/91)
anderson@dogie.macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes: >Just one: too many and *way* too soon. Your 'n' key >will work just fine for the things that don't interest >you. Agree, but let me extend this suggestion. Run 'nn' :-) The "Let's create a few more groups, because this group discusses matters I'm not interested in" philosophy discourages the creativity that comes from diversity of perspectives. Until this group's submissions exceed, say, 100 per day, or I'm flagging less than 30% of those submissions, I personally will oppose a breakup. BTW, since there has yet to be a Call for Discussion, a Call for Vote is not appropriate. Reference the Usenet guidelines. ----------- uunet!media!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake shwake@rsxtech
hamm@mbcl.rutgers.edu (02/14/91)
In article <EbiAXsa00UzxI4eqRg@andrew.cmu.edu>, ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) writes: > Wow, there seems to be more and more messages posted daily to > comp.sys.next, half of which I am not interested in. How about a call > for votes on spliting the bboard into subgroups of the more common type > of postings. > > I suggest: > > comp.sys.next.apps > comp.sys.next.hardware > comp.sys.next.music > comp.sys.next.mach(or unix) > comp.sys.next.networking > comp.sys.next.programming > > Does any one else have any suggestions? I vote to keep things as a single group for quite awhile yet. Failing that, I'd vote with the poster who suggested only three subgroups (user, programmer, and sysadm). Greg - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gregory H. Hamm || Phone: (201)932-4864 Director, Molecular Biology Computing Lab || FAX: (201)932-5735 Waksman Institute/CABM || BITNET: hamm@biovax P.O. Box 759, Rutgers University || Internet: hamm@mbcl.rutgers.edu Piscataway, NJ 08855 * USA || - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
robertw@informix.com (Robert Weinberg) (02/15/91)
I would like to see a seperate group for application users,
those of us who are fairly naive about disktabs and C++,
but who live mostly on the application user side.
It might make sense also to split network administration and email
issues into one group, and programming and interface design issues into
another group.
That's my vote.
--
* Rob Weinberg, graphics & publishing ***** Does a falling tree make a sound *
* {uunet,pyramid}!infmx!robertw ***** if 1: no one hears it *
* => Ask me about me. ***** BUT 2: it is not known that *
* => Ask Informix about Informix. ***** no one hears it? * cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu (Chuck Herrick) (02/15/91)
In article <285@rosie.NeXT.COM> news@NeXT.COM (news) writes:
I like it too (my personal opinion, not NeXT's).
I like to stay close to user
issues but have trouble keeping up with all the postings.
It seems pretty obvious that the concensus is that comp.sys.next
should be split up into sub-news-groups. So let's get this thing
started as soon as possible.
This is a call for volunteers.
Pick a sub-news-group of your choice,
read the netiquette/info on starting new newsgroups,
and get your new newsgroup off the ground.
Man the hatches, full steam ahead!
--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and are in no way attributed
to any of the many people for whom I work. Who they are is irrelevant.waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (02/15/91)
In article <1076@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU>, barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: [...material deleted...] > I agree its time for a split---but how about a sequence of > bifurcations as needed, rather than splintering all at once. > The first bifurcation, it seems, would be > > comp.sys.next.technical_aspects_of_apps,_system_admin_and_hardware > comp.sys.next.general_discussions_of_next_related_issues > > although I think the naming requires a bit more work.:-) > I agree with this approach. I believe I've seen it implemented with names (to tweak Barry's suggestions just a tad) such as: comp.sys.next.tech comp.sys.next.discussion or comp.sys.next.d in other newsgroups I've followed. [...more material deleted...] c.f.waltrip Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu> Opinions expressed are my own.
athame@athena.mit.edu (Dirk Karis) (02/15/91)
In article <1991Feb14.144545.1@capd.jhuapl.edu>, waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu writes: |> In article <1076@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU>, barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry |> Merriman) writes: |> |> [...material deleted...] |> > I agree its time for a split---but how about a sequence of |> > bifurcations as needed, rather than splintering all at once. |> > The first bifurcation, it seems, would be |> I agree with this approach. I believe I've seen it implemented with |> names (to tweak Barry's suggestions just a tad) such as: |> comp.sys.next.tech |> comp.sys.next.discussion or comp.sys.next.d Yes, yes! This has several advantages over the split all at once approach- it'd be easier to decide where a message belongs (I've been thinking about the recent articles, and they don't reflect the distributions people have selected in particular, music does not warrant its own group at this point) and none of the groups would die for lack of readers. Dirk Karis athame@athena.mit.edu
jchin@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Joseph Chin) (02/16/91)
In article <244@raysnec.UUCP> shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes: >The "Let's create a few more groups, because this group discusses matters >I'm not interested in" philosophy discourages the creativity that comes >from diversity of perspectives. Until this group's submissions exceed, >say, 100 per day, or I'm flagging less than 30% of those submissions, I >personally will oppose a breakup. YES ... for the exact reason(s) as stated above. Therefore, count me in as one of the NO votes. It is far better to see an area with 100 new messages each day than to wade through 10 areas with 10 messages each. > > BTW, since there has yet to be a Call for Discussion, a Call for >Vote is not appropriate. Reference the Usenet guidelines. YES ... please refer to your copy of Robert's Rules of Order! >----------- >uunet!media!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake shwake@rsxtech :-) Joe jchin@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca -- ************************************************************** * "Kill the body and the head will die" (Hunter S. Thompson) * * NeXT --> The ultimate electronic publishing platform! * ********** Joseph Chin --> jchin@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca *********
asmith@micor.ocunix.on.ca (adam smith) (02/16/91)
How about: comp.sys.next.users comp.sys.next.programmers ? The big problem as I see it is that the technical people don't necessarily want to read "why can't I boot my cube?... oh... I forgot to plug it in" and users don't want to read " how do I set the interrupt to make block 49h turn sim on my plag script for thwack?". Anyone who does, can read both. I really don't think that this is premature. Yes?
lang@panews (02/16/91)
In article <EbiAXsa00UzxI4eqRg@andrew.cmu.edu> ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) writes: >I suggest: > >comp.sys.next.[...] > >Does any one else have any suggestions? Be smart and follow comp.sys.amiga's excellent idea: whatever the final split is (if any), be sure to include comp.sys.next.advocacy for discussions about what is so great about the NeXT, why it is better or worse than other platforms, etc. Those sorts of discussions have a legitimate purpose for those who haven't seen them all before, so it is important to have a place for them; but it is good to keep that place separate for those of us who have heard it all before and aren't interested anymore. Be seeing you... ++Lang
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) (02/17/91)
>>>>> On 15 Feb 91 17:41:26 GMT, jchin@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Joseph Chin) said:
Joseph> It is far better to see an area with 100 new messages each day than to
Joseph> wade through 10 areas with 10 messages each.
Ah, but you forget the crosspostings. 1x100 becomes 10x40. Nice, isn't it.
Let's keep this group as one. comp.sys.sun is still a single group. If
a specific subject becomes heated, we might create new technical
groups for it. In this case, it would be better to have them non-NeXT
specific if possible, ie. comp.windows.nextstep, comp.os.mach (we already
have that one) and so on.
/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | Beauty is a French phonetic corruption
CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | - FZ