Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!bloom-beacon!ambar
From: ambar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Jean Marie Diaz)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: news.software.nn
Message-ID: <AMBAR.89Nov25221054@bill-the-cat.mit.edu>
Date: 26 Nov 89 03:10:54 GMT
References: <8911231818.AA21431@texas.dk> <256C6141.6D77@rpi.edu>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Organization: Madhouse International Technologies
Lines: 20
In-Reply-To: tale@pawl.rpi.edu's message of 23 Nov 89 21:29:37 GMT


   From: tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence)
   Date: 23 Nov 89 21:29:37 GMT

   [...] I still believe we need _less_ news.software.every.seperate.piece=
   .of.news.software groups.

Actually, I disagree.  I see no reason to wade through traffic about
reader X when that reader is not installed on any of my systems.
Neither is there a good reason to combine (say) news.software.b and
news.software.anu-news.  (Though news.software.b is rather misnamed
these days, there's no shortage of traffic in it.)  As long as the
divisions are clear (and they could hardly be clearer in this case),
having separate groups provide a clear win for people who only want to
read part of the traffic.  People who want to see it all can subscribe
to all the groups.


				 AMBAR
ambar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu		   {mit-eddie,uunet}!bloom-beacon!ambar