Xref: utzoo news.groups:22567 comp.databases:6514 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!orcenl!bengsig From: bengsig@oracle.nl (Bjorn Engsig) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.databases Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.database.oracle Message-ID: <917@nlsun1.oracle.nl> Date: 19 Jul 90 12:56:24 GMT References: <8468@arctic.nprdc.arpa> <10099@sybase.sybase.com> Reply-To: bengsig@oracle.nl (Bjorn Engsig) Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Oracle Europe, The Netherlands Lines: 19 In article <8468@arctic.nprdc.arpa> carroll@nprdc.navy.mil (Larry Carroll) writes: |This is a call for discussion for creation of the newsgroup |comp.database.oracle. This newsgroup would cater to the specific |needs for Oracle developers and users. | Article <10099@sybase.sybase.com> by tim@ohday.sybase.com (Tim Wood) says: |At the risk of being dismissed out of hand as an apologist for a competitor, |I claim that vendor-specific groups (for DBMSs) would be counterproductive |as a whole. Yes, I couldn't agree more on Tim's comments. The comp.databases group is one of the better ones on this wonderful net with a very high signal/noise ratio, and the current habit of putting a product name in the subject, when it is product specific seems to work all right. If we were to create comp.databases. I don't think you as the users or our-selves as vendors would benifit very much, and the amount of traffic on comp.databases is not by itself enough to justify a split. -- Bjorn Engsig, Domain: bengsig@oracle.nl, bengsig@oracle.com Path: uunet!mcsun!orcenl!bengsig