🚀 go-pugleaf

Why should a .pc or .pc-clone hierarchy be used instead of the existing
.ibm.pc?  I.e., why duplicate an existing hierarchy?

The current structure works just fine for people who don't run IBM-made 
PCs, or don't even use Micro Channel Architecture.  E.g., most posters
to csip.hardware, .soundcard, and .games do NOT have IBM-made PCs, yet
they feel free to ask questions in there.  comp.sys.ibm.pc stands less
for "IBM" than "computers with Intel x86 CPUs running DOS, OS/2, Windows,
Linux, or whatever."  To me, there appears no need to delete the "ibm"
part of the group name--it is a de facto "pc-clone" group already!

That being said, I still support subdividing csip.hardware into various
interest areas.   We ought to be deciding what areas to include.
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin     "Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate
f67709907@ccit.arizona.edu      things." -- Dan's advice to Pres. Clinton

   Delightful Things
     A love unknown to others.
     To have solved a riddle.
     A real bargain at a shop.
     A letter from one's sweetheart.
     When something one has ordered turns out well.
	-- from _Inumakura_ (The Dog Pillow)