tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) (08/14/90)
rja <rja@edison.cho.ge.com> writes: > Formal Proposal: > old name: comp.binaries.ibm.pc comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d > new name: comp.binaries.msdos comp.binaries.msdos.d Can we also add to the vote, when it comes to that: new group: comp.binaries.mswindows There has been quite a bit of discussion about this in comp.windows.ms, and far too many binaries floating through that group. Of course we'll need a moderator first, though. [ \tom haapanen --- university of waterloo --- tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu ] [ "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) (08/15/90)
phoenix@ms.uky.edu (R'ykandar Korra'ti) writes: >rja <rja@edison.cho.ge.com> writes: >>Formal Proposal: >>old name: comp.binaries.ibm.pc comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d >>new name: comp.binaries.msdos comp.binaries.msdos.d > I think this makes a lot of sense. After all, more non-IBM machines >run MS-DOS than IBM machines do; and once (and assuming) that OS/2 starts >moving along, the current group names would be confusing to the first-time >user. Agreed. comp.binaries.ibm.pc is too ambiguous since there could be binaries for DOS, OS/2, AIX, UNIX, Minix, Coherent, MS-Windows, etc... All of these OS run on IBM PC/AT/XT/RT. Almost all of the postings are not even IBM PC specific (i.e. they will run on most MS-DOS machines). I think that naming the group along OS lines is better than by company and product name in this case. Also there has been mention in comp.windows.ms about MS-Windows binaries. Discussing creation of comp.binaries.mswindows may also be appropriate at this time. -- Andy Toy, Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Internet: andy@mks.com 35 King Street North, Waterloo, UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!andy Ontario, CANADA N2J 2W9 Phone: 519-884-2251 FAX: 519-884-8861