🚀 go-pugleaf

I have changed the subject; this was started in a thread with the subject
	Re: Postscript to draw the USA posted to alt.sources

clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

>In article <4365@vidiot.UUCP> brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes:
>>In article <3925@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
[other discussion deleted]
>>How about my suggestion to have a PostScript sources group?  Oh, I can hear
>>the screams and moans now...not another newsgroup.  But what could be more
>>natural than to have a PostScript sources group within the PostScript
>>newsgroups.

>It's not that bad idea - that's what comp.sources.* is for.  However,
>the current convention is that there's no language differentiation in
>the groups, only O/S (or "refereed review", versus "review", versus "packaging
>standards only").  However, since PostScript is, in one sense, a different environment
>altogether from UNIX, a comp.sources.postscript might fly - especially if
>moderated.  I suspect, tho, the arguments would be about PostScript being a
>graphics format (and hence should be under alt.binaries), or there being
>insufficient demand (for PS programs versus, say, pornos) that it would
>be a long slog.

>I dunno.  What do other people think?  If we decide that one's appropriate
>and that it has a reasonable chance at flying, I'm amenible to running
>the vote.

I think this is interesting.  That's why I posted the USA map that started
this.  It may be too early for a Call For Discussion, if there aren't more
people jumping into this thread, though.

I also think we would want to discuss the issues about what kinds of source
should be posted.  The USA map, after all, was a thinly disguised binary.
There were a few interesting ideas in the prolog that helped keep the size
down, but the bulk of it is really just rlineto's and strokes.  That's one
of the reasons I didn't try and of the regular sources groups.

So, does it matter? Would people want a PS source group for PS ideas, or for
pretty pictures?  Is there enough interest to get the few hundred votes it
takes for a new group to come even close?

If so, I think it would be good precisely because PS source is in some ways
enherently different from other sources.  It tends to have a kernel of
generally-useful ideas and a huge amount of what's really data.  This may
annoy folks in other sources groups.  We're sort of used to it.

Anybody who reads this, if you want to make it happen, we need to know you're
interested.
-- 
Kevin O'Gorman ( kevin@kosman.UUCP, kevin%kosman.uucp@nrc.com )
voice: 805-984-8042 Vital Computer Systems, 5115 Beachcomber, Oxnard, CA  93035
Non-Disclaimer: my boss is me, and he stands behind everything I say.