🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7623@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> J Greely (greely)  writes:
>This is essentially what is happening on the site level.  People are
>asking, why should I carry these huge binary groups, when our audience
>is so small?  Some of them just remove them.  As a quick thought, why
>don't we change all of the binary groups into a seperate distribution?
>Then we'd have binaries.mac, etc., and any site that didn't want the
>overhead of carrying them could cancel them all at once.

I still think that the suggestion I made back in the dark ages when comp.all
was created would have made a lot of people happy.  I suggested that ALL of
the Mac groups be under a comp.mac hierarchy, which with today's groups would
look like:

		My Name			Current Name
		-------------------	----------------------
		comp.mac		comp.sys.mac
		comp.mac.digest		comp.sys.mac.digest
		comp.mac.binaries	comp.binaries.mac
		comp.mac.sources	comp.sources.mac
		comp.mac.hypercard	comp.sys.mac.hypercard
		comp.mac.programmer	comp.sys.mac.programmer

The advantage I saw was with ALL Mac groups under a single hierarchy, it
would be trivial for sites with an interest in Macs to archive comp.mac.all,
while other sites that had no interest in Macs could use find or expire
to reclaim disk space for better uses.

In rethinking this now, it might even be a good idea to create an entirely
new hierarchy seperate from comp.all, such as sys.all or pc.all to encompass
all micros/personal computers.  But that's another can of worms...
-- 
	Roger L. Long
	dhw68k!bytebug