Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!caesar.cs.montana.edu!milton!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!dvinci!news
From: lowey@dvinci!herald.usask.ca.UUCP (Kevin &,,4826,6535185)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION:  comp.binaries.os2
Message-ID: <1990Jan16.012138.9913@dvinci.usask.ca>
Date: 16 Jan 90 01:21:38 GMT
References: <5661@holston.UUCP>
Sender: news@dvinci.usask.ca
Reply-To: lowey@dvinci!herald.usask.ca.USask.Ca
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Lines: 36

From article <5661@holston.UUCP>, by barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk):
> In article <1990Jan9.154132.9895@mks.com>, andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) writes:
>> 
>> Why don't we just use comp.binaries.ibm.pc?  They are binaries and
>> they run on a IBM PC (o.k. may it should comp.binaries.ibm.ps2 :-).  

> I second that...this is just plain needless. Let's get a grip on
> redundant over-zealous newsgroup creation.

First, what is wrong with having a separate binaries group?  It doesn't
cost any more in transmission time, or disk space.  If it were separate,
then end nodes could choose to not take the OS/2 binaries, but still
take the MS-DOS binaries.  Lumping them both together would just cause
problems.

Also, although it is called COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC, it has in fact been used
as COMP.BINARIES.MSDOS (which is what it should have been called all along).
Telling us to put OS/2 binaries there is like telling Macintosh users to
put their binaries in the APPLE PRODOS binaries group (if there is such a
thing).  Next you will tell us that Xenix sources should go there instead
of in the Unix sources newsgroup.  Preposterous.

Finally, in case you haven't noticed, there IS NO COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC 
group (at least temporarily).  The moderator buckled under the pressure (he
is over a month behind in postings) and resigned.  They are currently 
looking for a new moderator for the group, and until then nothing is 
going through.  Now lets see ... you are suggesting we add to the problem
by including OS/2 binaries on that already overburdened newsgroup.  Seems
logical to me #8-)

One more thing.  OS/2 runs on more than just IBM computers.  Using your logic,
we would then need a COMP.BINARIES.COMPAQ, COMP.BINARIES.TANDY, 
COMP.BINARIES.DELL, COMP.BINARIES.ZENITH, COMP.BINAR  ... ah, you get the
picture.

- Kevin Lowey @ 1:140/43 - LOWEY@SASK.USask.Ca - ...!alberta!dvinci!lowey