🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1485@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> creps@silver (Steve Creps)
writes:
$ 
$    It seems that this group is becoming more and more cluttered, in my
$ opinion, with postings that are discussions that are more political,
$ or gripes about customer service, "where can I get...," discussions on
$ piracy, and so forth, and fewer techinical questions. Personally I'm
$ getting bored to death with all the non-technical questions.
$    This is not a new group proposal YET, so don't send me any votes yet,
$ but how would people feel about a new ibm group for technical questions
$ only? It could be called comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech. Let's get some discussion
$ on this and see if a call for votes is justified.

In article <6237@swan.ulowell.edu> boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc
Coordinator) writes:
$ [I've cross posted this to news.groups, where it should also appear. -B]
$ 
$ It seems you forget that a new group has already been proposed, and voting
$ is about to close. It is for comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d, designed to relieve
$ comp.sys from the postings about binaries, and comp.binaries from non-binary
$ postings (which will no longer be possible, as soon as Rahul takes his place
$ as moderator). Wait until this is done, and see about traffic through
$ comp.sys, and if it is still to much, then propose a new group.

This may sound ridiculous, but I think it has its merits.  Feel
free to bash it for the lousy idea you think it is.  Ok, I know
you won't hesitate to do so :-) . . .

The people in comp.binaries.ibm.pc who dare to post text there (and
I am not one of them) are asking for a discussion group.  The people
in comp.sys.ibm.pc want to have a technical group.  The traffic
volume in the latter group suggests that we may want to have a
"news" group to talk about the sort of gossip found in PC Week.
One person suggested having comp.sys.ibm.pc.news.  I like this idea
better than changing comp.sys.ibm.pc to comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech because
that's what comp.sys.ibm.pc is supposed to be.  In fact, that's
what all comp.* groups are supposed to be.  My proposal is to have
the following four groups:

	1. comp.sys.ibm.pc		(for technical talk)
	2. comp.sys.ibm.pc.news		(for microsoft bashing, etc.)
	3. comp.binaries.ibm.pc		(for binary file distribution - 
	   moderated)
	4. comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d	(for discussion and documents
	   pertaining to the binary files posted to group number 3.

If the idea of Microsoft bashing sounds like a waste of bandwidth,
it's really a joke.  But there are many discussions around about
the ethics of copy protection, copyrights, shareware, etc., whose
volume warrants a newsgroup.  Furthermore, I rarely read them and
think I speak for many people when I say I wish comp.sys.ibm.pc
were devoted to PC programming tips and usage tips for packaged
software, etc.

One disadvantage I see to my proposal is that with more newsgroups,
it becomes unclear, especially to neophites, as to where to post
what.  This would result in meta-discussions of the variety, "Don't
post THAT topic to THIS newsgroup."  And by the way, I never post
things like that.  I really don't think they help, even though
their content is usually right.  If I feel that strongly, I send
the poor sucker private mail.  He'll get the point.  I don't think
I can take on the task of "educating the public" since the turnover
on the net is very large.

Tom Reingold
PAPERNET:                      |INTERNET:       tr@bellcore.bellcore.com
Bell Communications Research   |UUCP-NET:       bellcore!tr
445 South St room 2L350        |SOUNDNET:       (201) 829-4622 [work],
Morristown, NJ 07960-1910      |                (201) 287-2345 [home]