Xref: utzoo news.groups:25955 news.admin:11261 news.software.b:6296
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!pilchuck!dataio!fnx!news
From: news@fnx.UUCP (News place holder)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin,news.software.b
Subject: Re: Groups with postings and subgroups (was: Re: sci.geo or ... )
Message-ID: <800@fnx.UUCP>
Date: 29 Nov 90 16:27:24 GMT
References: <10363@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> <1990Nov22.151938.17236@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <659645056.29152@mindcraft.com> <1990Nov27.200339.29660@servalan.uucp>
Reply-To: news@fnx.UUCP (News place holder)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: I/Ovations    Kirkland, WA
Lines: 40

In article <1990Nov27.200339.29660@servalan.uucp> ben@servalan.uucp (Ben Mesander) writes:
		(about the original problem, which is:)
>>>You don't want to have postings going to sci.geo [since sci.geo.fluids
>>>already exists], it breaks things like simple shell scripts to have a
>>>group contain both postings and subgroups. Many groups, including the

>binaries, not scripts. *I* personally don't have this problem, but
>much of my job involves these hideous old computers that are *not*
>UNIX machines, are *not* flexible, and do *not* have source available,
>and do not support C. Just a little consideration for those of us 
>running on old backwards systems, please. It is a problem for some.

Computers are for *people* to use.  If the computer can't handle the
job, it should be doing a different job, or relegated to the trash heap.
How would you feel if I said "Hey guys, stop creating these newsgroups
with long names!  My hideous old computer can only have 6 character file
names and these new groups are breaking my scripts"?  Having discussion
groups under the primary topic is so natural from a user interface point
of view that it doesn't make sense to accommodate a few obsolete systems
by removing an important feature.

How do you deal with things like comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d?  In other words,
how would you deal with this:

alt.cards.queens
alt.cards.queens.d
alt.cards.jokers
alt.cards.jokers.d

assuming the queens and jokers groups were moderated and the .d groups
were for discussion?  You would *not* want to have:

alt.cards.queens
alt.cards.jokers
alt.cards.d

since the discussion group would be all confused between jokers and
queens.  Trying to come up with some unique names for the discussion
groups is just confusing to users.  Heaven knows they are confused
enough as it is! :-)