🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4606op$e7c@oznet07.ozemail.com.au>, scottm@fourth.avenue.com.au writes:
> newquist@maxwell.ucdavis.edu (Jason Newquist) wrote:
> 
> >I'd reccomend more than one group.
> >I'd suggest:
> >	comp.sys.be.advocacy
> >	comp.sys.be.hardware
> >	comp.sys.be.system
> >	comp.sys.be.applications
> >	comp.sys.be.development (or .programming)
> >You might say that the volume doesn't justify the multi-group creation, 
> >but it will very soon.
> >Jason Newquist                          http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~newquist/
> 
> I agree, just count the number of Be related posts since October 13
> [ Be Day? :) ]

Look, this is getting out of hand.  How many BeBoxes are in the hands
of non-Be employees?  A dozen???  And already people want multiple Be
newsgroups?

This is reminiscent of the people predicting that Be will take over
the entire PC industry in four years.  Let's bring this discussion
back into the realm of reality.

Yes, it might be a good idea at some time in the future, when it
becomes clear that other groups are necessary.  But right now the
important thing is getting Be traffic off of comp.sys.powerpc.
Proposing a huge gamut of comp.sys.be.*, and the inevitable arguments
of which subgroups are appropriate and which ones aren't, only
endangers that goal.

Let's get comp.sys.be and go from there.

> the multi strata group would be planning for the future by learning from
> today's lessons, just like the Be.

Two can play the analogy game.  I don't see Be worrying too much about
VARs or distribution channels or corporate markets.  They're taking
things one step at a time, and not getting ahead of their
(nonexistant) market share.

--
Martin Frankel			mdf@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc.		(415)933-6191