Xref: utzoo news.admin:7689 news.groups:14808 comp.os.vms:19791 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!sharkey!itivax!scs From: scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,comp.os.vms Subject: Re: New newsgroup hierarchy Message-ID: <4439@itivax.iti.org> Date: 20 Nov 89 13:36:54 GMT References: <1618.25614348@mccall.uucp> <1662.256451e0@mccall.uucp> Followup-To: news.admin Organization: Industrial Technology Institute, Ann Arbor, MI. Lines: 15 I for one support the vmsnet heirarchy. For purely pragmatic reasons -- we don't need it, we don't want it, and our neighbors could care less. Were it up to me, I'd move most of the IBM-PC and MAC stuff into separate heirarchies as well (tho we'd probably take those). Separate heirarchies are a good way of cutting the fire-hose of USENET data flow down into something our disk space can manage. Managing them is not an issue -- I spend zero time worrying about gnu.*, unix-pc.*, alt.*, and the other 'alternative' distributions. What's preferable -- alt.rhode-island going to the full alt distribution, or mi.* (michigan) staying comfortably within it's bounds? Let heirarchies be a way of doing top-level control just as they are now. -- Steve Simmons scs@iti.org Industrial Technology Institute You're not a big name on Usenet until someone puts you in their .sig file.