Gerben.Wierda@samba.acs.unc.edu (Gerben Wierda) (02/14/91)
Yes! I propose also: comp.sys.next.x # this will return to the group, no doubt comp.sys.next.wizards # To help people with sysadm questions and important: comp.sys.next.flames # some of them are really fun to read and maybe even: comp.sys.next.os2.question.mark.microsoft.funny.postings # especially for people at Microsoft Flame-like questions: Can anybody tell me: When was Microsoft founded anyway? What will be the future of OS/2 when even IBM is working with Novell? The last straw for OS/2 seemed to be Lan Manager to me. Now analyst say they predict 64% for Netware and 1.4% for Lan Manager (read it today in Computerworld (NL)) And what is the future of AIX now that OSF has chosen MACH? Gerben PS: does anybody know a UUCP site in Arnhem, The Netherlands that could play host for me and my upcoming NeXT?
Gerben.Wierda@samba.acs.unc.edu (Gerben Wierda) (02/15/91)
This is a serious posting (the previous one wasn't, really) *If* we are going to split, then the names of the subgroups are very impoortant. Take this: if a group is called comp.sys.next.tech or comp.sys.next.discussion it is likely that I would not know where to post most of the time. Therefore we should use names that are more helpful in a split up that is more than only a volume split-up. I therefore propose that the following subgroups: comp.sys.next.develop # for C, C++, IB, Objective-C comp.sys.next.connectivity # for TCP/IP, UUCP, Kermit, modems, etc. comp.sys.next.maintenance # for hardware/software upgrading, # system admin comp.sys.next.applications # for things like WriteNow, Improv and # other ready-to-use products I assume that if (for instance) the people doing music applications and development are creating too much noise for either the development or application subgroup it is time to make subsubgroups like comp.sys.next.application.music or ...develop.music Oh, I forgot, because NeXT is a new machine it would be nice to have a comp.sys.next.announce, but I don't know if there are any problems (legally) with such a subgroup. I hope this is a useful addendum, so that people are not going to flame me for being the source of the problem (newsgroup becoming too big)... Greetings to you all Gerben
andrewd@cs.tamu.edu (Andrew Ted Duchowski) (02/16/91)
In article <2613@beguine.UUCP> Gerben.Wierda@samba.acs.unc.edu (Gerben Wierda) writes: > >[..] >I therefore propose that the following subgroups: >comp.sys.next.develop # for C, C++, IB, Objective-C >comp.sys.next.connectivity # for TCP/IP, UUCP, Kermit, modems, etc. >comp.sys.next.maintenance # for hardware/software upgrading, > # system admin >comp.sys.next.applications # for things like WriteNow, Improv and > # other ready-to-use products > I've been following this thread, and I too wouldn't mind a split. Being a sort of fairly-good-at-unix-but-new-to-NeXT person, I feel that some of my questions were justifiable, but probably peeved some of you next-gurus because of their apparent simplicity. Anyway, my point is, if we're going to split, why not adhere to a sort of NeXT'ish naming convention, ie.: comp.sys.next.admin # hardware/software upgrades, admin comp.sys.next.apps # WriteNow, Improv, etc. comp.sys.next.developer # C, C++, IB, Obj-C comp.sys.next.net # for connectivity comp.sys.next.library # whatever you guys think is appropriate. Seems kind of logical (and "comfortable") to me. >I assume that if (for instance) the people doing music applications and >development are creating too much noise for either the development or >application subgroup it is time to make subsubgroups like >comp.sys.next.application.music or ...develop.music I agree with this too, but would leave this for a later date, and first start off with the above. -Andrew andrewd@cs.tamu.edu -- -------------- Not an Official Texas A&M University Document --------------
scott@erick.gac.edu (Scott Hess) (02/16/91)
I propose that we split the groups into: comp.sys.next All NeXT discussions comp.sys.next.split.discussion Discussions about splitting c.s.n This would greatly reduce the volume of comp.sys.next. :-) Later, -- scott hess scott@gac.edu Independent NeXT Developer GAC Undergrad <I still speak for nobody> "Tried anarchy, once. Found it had too many constraints . . ." "Buy `Sweat 'n wit '2 Live Crew'`, a new weight loss program by Richard Simmons . . ."
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (02/16/91)
In article <SCOTT.91Feb15170521@erick.gac.edu> scott@erick.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes: >I propose that we split the groups into: > >comp.sys.next All NeXT discussions >comp.sys.next.split.discussion Discussions about splitting c.s.n This is the best suggestion I've seen yet. (No, I'm not in favor of splitting the group.) -=EPS=-