Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6537 comp.sys.att:10942
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!vmp!sonyd1.Broadcast.Sony.COM!blilly.UUCP!balilly.UUCP!bruce
From: bruce@balilly.UUCP (Bruce Lilly)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION  comp.sys.3b1
Message-ID: <1990Nov23.045713.8248@blilly.UUCP>
Date: 23 Nov 90 04:57:13 GMT
References: <11661@alice.att.com> <1990Nov22.004307.4186@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Sender: news@blilly.UUCP (News Administrator)
Organization: Bruce Lilly, Flushing, NY
Lines: 27

In article <1990Nov22.004307.4186@nntp-server.caltech.edu> andy@cs.caltech.edu (Andy Fyfe) writes:
>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'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
>[ ... ]

Not to mention comp.unix and comp.unix.*...

>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.

I'd have to agree with Andy.  Regarding some comments about the
``difficulty'' of getting a feed of only comp.sys.att.3b1, it's trivially
easy under either B news or C news. A sys file line in the feed site's
file specifying only the desired group(s) is all that's required. 
Those who are insecure or paranoid can specifically exclude any other group(s).

--
	Bruce Lilly		blilly!balilly!bruce@sonyd1.Broadcast.Sony.COM