bob@omni.com (Bob Weissman) (07/11/90)
In article <23300@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, barbour@alta.Colorado.EDU (Jim Barbour) writes: > What is the intended difference between the newgroups > alt.msdos.programmer and comp.os.msdos.programmer There is no difference. The alt group came first. Now that the comp group exists, it is time to rmgroup the alt group. (And comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer as well, but that's a different story with a different history.) Volunteers? -- Bob Weissman Internet: bob@omni.com UUCP: ...!{apple,pyramid,sgi,uunet}!omni!bob
mwilson@crash.cts.com (Marc Wilson) (07/11/90)
Please don't anyone put out an rmgroup on alt.msdos.programmer! The
signal-to-noise ratio in the comp.* groups is incredible!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marc Wilson
ARPA: ...!crash!mwilson@nosc.mil
...!crash!pnet01!pro-sol!mwilson@nosc.mil
UUCP: [ cbosgd | hp-sdd!hplabs | sdcsvax | nosc ]!crash!mwilson
INET: mwilson@crash.CTS.COM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~trier@cwlim.CWRU.EDU (Stephen C. Trier) (07/11/90)
Perhaps it would be better to say that alt.msdos.programmer came before
all of the other programming-specific PC and MS-DOS groups, as it was
created (to the best of my knowledge) before comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer.
It's not dead yet. So far, alt.msdos.programmer has been a nice quiet
area to discuss very technical details of MS-DOS with an unusually noise
level. In fact, the most noise we usually get is the "time to rmgroup
it" messages! (This isn't a flame about it; after all, I'm participating
in the noise this time!)
Let alt.msdos.programmer be for now. I want to see how well the new PC
groups behave before I give up on this group. If all goes well there,
alt.msdos.programmer will just quietly fade away. If it doesn't, the
a.m.p gang will still have their little haven of DOS hacking.
--
Stephen Trier Case Western Reserve University
Home: sct%seldon@scl.cwru.edu Information Network Services
Work: trier@cwlim.ins.cwru.edu
I do _not_ speak for the University.rja@edison.cho.ge.com (rja) (07/11/90)
As the manager/initiator of the PC reorganisation that created comp.os.msdos.programmer, I feel that why we have alt.msdos.programmer as well as the above group. Any group in alt.* is not part of the official USENET, while groups in comp, sci, soc, talk, news, and rec are in USENET proper. Many sites don't get ALTnet and when the reorganisation happened it was felt that a regular MS-DOS programmer group was needed. Someone on ALTnet would have to rmgroup the ALT.* group since it isn't part of USENET. The topics for discussion are identical and I hope that the ALTnet folks will eventually remove their group now that an equivalent USENET group with better distribution has been created.