Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6521 comp.sys.att:10927 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news From: andy@cs.caltech.edu (Andy Fyfe) Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION comp.sys.3b1 Message-ID: <1990Nov22.004307.4186@nntp-server.caltech.edu> Date: 22 Nov 90 00:43:07 GMT References: <11661@alice.att.com> Sender: news@nntp-server.caltech.edu Organization: California Institute of Technology Lines: 25 Nntp-Posting-Host: juno.caltech.edu In article <11661@alice.att.com> wilber@homxb.att.com writes: >Not only is comp.sys.3b1 four fewer letters to type than comp.sys.att.3b1, but >I note that Mac hackers have comp.sys.mac, not comp.sys.apple.mac; Amiga amigos >have comp.sys.amiga, not comp.sys.commodore.amiga. Also, comp.sys.att is a >"leaf" node (i.e., one where articles appear) and while netnews does allow >leaf nodes to also have subnodes, that can cause administrative hassles. >Some people will want to get comp.sys.att but not comp.sys.3b1, and vice >versa. They cover disjoint topics. (Or will, when the need for cross posting >ends.) I'll agree that there are deviations from a strict hierarchy. But the concept of subgroups of "leaf" nodes is hardly uncommon. Fairly recently the TeX people wanted their own newsgroup separate from comp.text -- there is now comp.text.tex (and comp.text.sgml and comp.text.desktop). There's comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.lisp.franz and comp.lang.lisp.x. Comp.periphs and comp.periphs.scsi. Comp.sys.dec and comp.sys.dec.micro. Comp.theory and comp.theory.*. Comp.windows.x and comp.windows.x.motif. The 3b1 is not a broad class of machines the way the Macintosh line is. The current newsgroup in the comp hierarchy to support the 3b1 is comp.sys.att. I haven't seen a convincing argument for not making the group comp.sys.att.3b1. That doesn't mean there isn't one, of course, and there's no requirement to convince me one way or the other either. Andy Fyfe andy@cs.caltech.edu