Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!andrewd
From: andrewd@cs.tamu.edu (Andrew Ted Duchowski)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: SPLIT group
Keywords: Name
Message-ID: <12222@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Date: 15 Feb 91 18:34:15 GMT
References: <2613@beguine.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@helios.TAMU.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Lines: 42

In article <2613@beguine.UUCP> Gerben.Wierda@samba.acs.unc.edu (Gerben Wierda) writes:
>
>[..]
>I therefore propose that the following subgroups:
>comp.sys.next.develop		# for C, C++, IB, Objective-C
>comp.sys.next.connectivity	# for TCP/IP, UUCP, Kermit, modems, etc.
>comp.sys.next.maintenance	# for hardware/software upgrading,
>				# system admin
>comp.sys.next.applications	# for things like WriteNow, Improv and
>				# other ready-to-use products
>

I've been following this thread, and I too wouldn't mind a split.
Being a sort of fairly-good-at-unix-but-new-to-NeXT person, I feel
that some of my questions were justifiable, but probably peeved
some of you next-gurus because of their apparent simplicity.

Anyway, my point is, if we're going to split, why not adhere to
a sort of NeXT'ish naming convention, ie.:

comp.sys.next.admin		# hardware/software upgrades, admin
comp.sys.next.apps		# WriteNow, Improv, etc.
comp.sys.next.developer		# C, C++, IB, Obj-C
comp.sys.next.net		# for connectivity
comp.sys.next.library		# whatever you guys think is appropriate.

Seems kind of logical (and "comfortable") to me.

>I assume that if (for instance) the people doing music applications and
>development are creating too much noise for either the development or
>application subgroup it is time to make subsubgroups like
>comp.sys.next.application.music or ...develop.music

I agree with this too, but would leave this for a later date, and
first start off with the above.

-Andrew
 andrewd@cs.tamu.edu

--

-------------- Not an Official Texas A&M University Document --------------