xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/16/91)
sutela@polaris.utu.fi (Kari Sutela) writes: > xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >> Before going public, why not chat in the Amiga >> groups for a bit about doing something about >> c.s.a.programmer, which is still _much_ too big. >> Does any clever soul see a reasonably clean >> partitioning of the current traffic? > This is not reasonable, I'll say! ;-) > but how about: > comp.sys.amiga.programmer.applications > Discussions about programmer related applications: > editors, compilers etc. Questions like: "Which > C-compiler/assembler is the best?" should go here. > Reports of bugs found in compilers should be > posted here, too (preferably, they should be sent > to the technical support people of the product). > Perhaps discussion on technical documentation > (like the RKMs) could go on here. Let's try c.s.a.p.tools, c.s.a.docs; might as well break it into digestable bits. > comp.sys.amiga.programmer.programming > Real programming related discussion goes on here. > Things like: "How do I do X?" etc. A terrible > group name, though. c.s.a.p.methods, or c.s.a.p.assist, perhaps? > comp.sys.amiga.programmer.asm > Assembly related programming. There currently > seems to be quite a lot of people who would read > this group. Those of us (me, for example) who > don't know a LEA from a CMP could unsubscribe to > it without regrets. Well, if we go language oriented, we need to cope with C, Modula-2, Fortran, Lisp/Scheme/Xlisp, Draco, AmigaBASIC, AREXX, and probably several other popular Amiga languages that don't come to mind immediately. I don't terribly much mind doing this for assembly, which seems to be a bit of a special case, but the other less popular languages would work better as mailing lists, like the current fairly low traffic but high value m2 mailing list. In fact, I'd like to see proponents of the Lisp family, Draco users, and Fortran users get mailing lists set up and the mail servers posted with the comp.sys.amiga.introduction FAQ and the big list published for all of Usenet as well. Any users of those languages with capability to put up a mail server, drop me a line and I'll put you in touch with the m2 list maintainer. It might be fun to have a c.s.a.p.langs and a one way echo from the mail lists to the group so those who care to could follow the traffic, but it would stay sorted out for the list users. AmigaBASIC is a bit of a puzzle; it is worthless for the A3000 due to "yet another Microsoft programming design blunder(tm)", but there is a lot of code around and probably lots of people still using it, though the traffic about it is minor; for now, say a mailing list if anyone cares to, and toss it in with the other low use languages. Ditto ABASIC, only more so. AREXX is another special case, and probably deserves a group of its own, too. > And my favourite: > comp.sys.amiga.programmer.I.don't.know.where.to.p- > ost.so.I'll.post.here.dammit I like it, I like it; the special characters might be a bit of a problem, but ... > Questions like: "Is there a program which does > X?", "Program X does Y, I want it to do Z. > HELP!!!!", "Program X gurues. HELP!!!". A group > for people who think that if a question concerns a > program, it is related to programming. The c.s.a.introduction group is supposed to do this; it needs to get used more. Start redirecting the posters of this kind of questions there (in EMAIL, for Klortho's sake!) > Nah, it would never work. The current size of > c.s.a.programmer is a bit too much for me, though. > Perhaps I should begin applying KILL files to this > group, too. That also works, but you miss a lot that casually mentions what your are trying to avoid in a posting you'd really like to read. I find making an anti-KILL file works better; put in all the folks you like to follow, mark their stuff saved for later, kill all the rest, and then yank the marked stuff forward to read. If you use trn (or perhaps nn), you can read progenitor articles even if you've killed them if the answers look interesting. Of course, per Kant's Categorical Imperative, it's worth noting that this fails miserably if everyone does it. Well, the lack of response almost made me give up on this whole concept of another reorganization, but my two weeks of cat sitting that's kept me off the net a lot is up tomorrow, and you've started things off, so I'll try a little harder. I'd still like to talk about this stuff in c.s.a.advocacy, but I am reminded most of the readership avoids that group like the plague, so let's crosspost to .misc and .programmer a bit until we get chased out, to try to draw a crowd. In my never ending quest to keep the c.s.a.* hierarchy flat, looking back over this, how about these for a starting set of names to pick apart? c.s.a.prog-advice (or prog-methods) c.s.a.prog-asm c.s.a.prog-arexx (or just let comp.lang.rexx carry the amiga stuff, too) c.s.a.prog-langs (and/or prog-misc) c.s.a.prog-docs c.s.a.prog-system (and/or prog-scripts) (or c.s.a.system, Dan's proposal, though I like to think of this as programming too) c.s.a.prog-tools That gives seven to nine groups, about the right number of chunks to make the current traffic bearable; are those groups such that some people would not at all read some of them (the goal of a split, of course), or does that just subdivide without removing the need to follow all subgroups, a fairly worthless exercise? I'd even add a c.s.a.prog-intro, if necessary. While I'm doing this, let's pull the idea of chopping up c.s.a.hardware back into the fire and the crosspost list, too. Last time, I proposed a .design, .standard, .3rd-party, and .hackers subdivision; this gets uglier, 'cause "hardware" doesn't have a pretty abbreviation, but how about these as flat subdivision names? c.s.a.hdwr-design c.s.a.hdwr-standard (or hdwr-stock) c.s.a.hdwr-3rd-party (whew, just made 14 characters) c.s.a.hdwr-hacking Again, vanilla questions about connecting a disk driver and hard disk and drive software together belong in c.s.a.introduction, not .hardware or its proposed replacements, but it will take some firm guidance (in EMAIL) to make that happen. What have I missed here or done wrong, or are the solder freaks happy with things as is despite the volume? Any stuff still left in c.s.a.misc that constitutes enough traffic to deserve a home of its own, and isn't just missing its proper group now? Besides comp.sys.amiga.paging.dave.haynie.help.help.help, I mean? [Sorry, Dave, couldn't resist.] /// It's Amiga /// for me: why Kent, the man from xanth. \\\/// settle for <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> \XX/ anything less? -- Convener, COMPLETED comp.sys.amiga grand reorganization. Here we go again.
c506634@umcvmb.missouri.edu (Eric Edwards) (06/17/91)
In article <1991Jun16.014324.532@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > In my never ending quest to keep the c.s.a.* hierarchy > flat, looking back over this, how about these for a > starting set of names to pick apart? > > c.s.a.prog-advice (or prog-methods) Hmmm. Sounds like Dear Abby. I think methods would be better. Not all implimentation issues are questions. > c.s.a.prog-asm > c.s.a.prog-arexx (or just let comp.lang.rexx > carry the amiga stuff, too) How about comp.sys.amiga.programmer.script? (or suitable mutation) That would cover Arexx, AmigaDOS scripts, and even catch things like Sksh and Csh. > c.s.a.prog-langs (and/or prog-misc) I would put that under tools. A compiler or interpreter is a programmer tool. Amiga specific issues would concern the Amiga compilers. Any topics that are truly about the langauge itself should go into the proper group under comp.lang.* > c.s.a.prog-docs Eh? Are we talking about errors in the RKM's or what? > c.s.a.prog-system (and/or prog-scripts) Hmmm. When I think of systems programming I don't think of scripts. Unlike Unix we don't have people hacking the AmigaOS kernel so I don't think this will get much traffic. > (or c.s.a.system, Dan's proposal, though I like to > think of this as programming too) I think comp.sys.amiga.system can stand by itself. Especially with the advent of 2.0 there are a lot of system issues that do not deal with programming. Eric Edwards: c506634 @ "I say we take off and nuke the entire site Inet: umcvmb.missouri.edu from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." Bitnet: umcvmb.bitnet -- Sigourney Weaver, _Aliens_ Rnews
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/18/91)
sutela@polaris.utu.fi (Kari Sutela) wrote: > comp.sys.amiga.programmer.asm > Assembly related programming. There currently > seems to be quite a lot of people who would read > this group. Those of us (me, for example) who > don't know a LEA from a CMP could unsubscribe to > it without regrets. xanthian@zorch.sf-bay.org (Kent Paul Dolan) wrote: > Well, if we go language oriented, we need to cope > with C, Modula-2, Fortran, Lisp/Scheme/Xlisp, > Draco, AmigaBASIC, AREXX, and probably several > other popular Amiga languages that don't come to > mind immediately. I left out C++; imminent brain death detected. mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) wrote: > How about > comp.sys.amiga.programmer.{asm,arexx,c,misc}? That > covers the big three, and leaves a place for > everything else. I would have included m2, but you > said that the mail list isn't very active, and I > don't know how it compares to the various basics. Only real problem I have with "by language" split is that you'd probably divide the traffic 10-5-80-5, and 80% of comp.sys.amiga.programmer is still too damn big. I'm still looking for a good breakdown; I don't much like mine, or any I've seen yet either; on the other hand, I like some of the stuff proposed for .hardware quite a bit. I need more help for ways to filter off stuff for .misc that is big enough to constitute a separate focus of traffic, but isn't just misplaced for a group that already exists. I'd be happy with even a four way split for c.s.a.programmer, but only if the smallest part of the split was 20% or more; anyone have any ideas or willing to do a subject analysis? What I'd _really_ like is a set of "get this stuff out of my face" proposals like the c.s.a.p.asm one Kari gave above, for substantial chunks of traffic folks would rather not read. While it's on my mind, is there any support for trying to move alt.sys.amiga.uucp{,patches} into the mainstream hierarchy, or is the alt distribution sufficient for such a narrow focus? After being scolded twice in email, I'll concede that c.s.a.prog-* and c.s.a.hdwr-* are ugly enough names that c.s.a.programm{er,ing}.* and c.s.a.hardware.* should be the choices, and I'll concede defeat on trying to keep c.s.a.* a flat hierarchy. Also, Peter da Silva would like to pull the Amiga futures discussion out of .advocacy, where it drowns in 90% or so flames; I'm willing to do it iff the group is moderated; otherwise the flames will just follow the discussion. Peter says two kids and work overload keep him unavailable; any volunteers to moderate c.s.a.futures if we make one? Mike, if you're back from Usenix, do you still want a group of your own? Another fairly coherent proposal received in email [heavily edited and mildly commented:] Darren Ewaniuk <ewaniu@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote: [about my hardware split:] > In my opinion (I'm an EE specializing in hardware > design) these splits aren't logical at all. > c.s.a.h.design is about the only logical split > from this, and there is low traffic on this. And > imagine the strain that poor Dave Haynie would be > under, as he'd practically be running this group! > c.s.a.problems would remove the need for your > 3rd-party and standard groups. > About the best split here would be to split off > the problems section (My brand x HD controller > won't work with rev y.y motherboard with brand z > memory board. What can I do?) into c.s.a.problems > or c.s.a.h.problems (although I prefer > c.s.a.problems) Actually, I like this a lot; a split into comp.sys.amiga.hardware.{misc,problems} would probably be close to 50-50, and might be "good enough" folks seeking (or willing to offer) help could be one place, folks just chatting about hardware issues in the other, and this may well provide two groups that can mostly ignore one another. > In short, my proposals are: > New groups: > comp.sys.amiga.problems - catch all for hardware and otherwise > -or- generic software problems. > comp.sys.amiga.hardware.problems - If you only want hardware problems. I much prefer the second; see below. > comp.sys.amiga.system - Good idea for kickstart/WB/system > discussion. > Split from comp.sys.amiga.programmer: > comp.sys.amiga.programmer.c - C specific discussion. > comp.sys.amiga.programmer.asm - Assembly specific discussion. > comp.sys.amiga.programmer.problems - Programming problems with system > routines or other languages. This strongly suggests c.s.a.hardware.problems, just to keep it from getting filled with "miscellaneous" problems by folks who don't notice the c.s.a.programmer.problems group. > Keep comp.sys.amiga.hardware and > comp.sys.amiga.programmer intact. Sort of; they'll both end up with .misc tags for reasons of net neatness. > These will still be the 'catch all' type of > groups, but will have their volume cut a bit by > splitting off some identifiable traffic into > comp.sys.amiga.problems, > comp.sys.amiga.programmer.problems, > comp.sys.amiga.programmer.c, and > comp.sys.amiga.programmer.asm. I'm still worried about the size of the .c portion, but let's hear what other people think. > [permission granted to summarize and post if any > of these make sense] Enough to be worth presenting publically. Any input on what to do with C++? Quite a bit of traffic now, likely to grow fast, as it is a popular language, and we finally have an up-to-date implementation available. /// It's Amiga /// for me: why Kent, the man from xanth. \\\/// settle for <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> \XX/ anything less? -- Convener, COMPLETED comp.sys.amiga grand reorganization.
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun18.092655.12436@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >and 80% of comp.sys.amiga.programmer is still too damn big. Personally, I find the number of postings to be just fine. How big is "too big"? 3 posts a day? 30? 300? If you must break up .programmer, how about: c.s.a.programmer.novice For beginner questions c.s.a.programmer.wizards For really in depth stuff c.s.a.programmer.misc For everything else >any volunteers to moderate c.s.a.futures if we make one? I didn't like this name back before the reorganization, and I still don't like it. What's it mean? "Futures" makes me think of "pork futures" or some such money-related stuff. If people want to talk about Commodore's future, how about comp.sys.amiga.speculation, or even comp.sys.amiga.thefuture? c.s.a.hardware.problems does sound really good, though. Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) (06/20/91)
When this gets serious enough to put to a vote, it might be a good time
to move the two AmigaUUCP groups into comp:
alt.sys.amiga.uucp -> comp.sys.amiga.uucp
alt.sys.amiga.uucp.patches -> comp.sys.amiga.uucp.patches
Currently, these two groups are in alt and dedicated to discussion of
AmigaUUCP (.uucp) and for related source/script/binary postings
(.uucp.patches).
As I said, when things get serious. Right now I am quite comfortable
with them where they are now and I am very happy that I did not try to
meld them into some other existing group (.datacomm was suggested but,
frankly, it would only make the mix into major confusion).
Noise goes way down when the topic is well defined. Apart from one
poor guy who decided to use my group as a teseting group for fooling
with control messages on world wide distribution and bringing down both
european network gateways for a day or two, it has been smooth running.
Considering the direction the USENET is going in terms of news a
considerable breakup will probably occur sometime in the near future,
with appropriate new news-readers to deal with it. There is simply
going to be too much traffic in each group.
-Matt
--
Matthew Dillon dillon@Overload.Berkeley.CA.US
891 Regal Rd. uunet.uu.net!overload!dillon
Berkeley, Ca. 94708
USA