Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixa.cc.columbia.edu!cy5
From: cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: How about a 4dos newsgroup? (Was: Re: 4dos misfeature?)
Message-ID: <1991Mar8.163348.21108@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date: 8 Mar 91 16:33:48 GMT
References: <1828@manta.NOSC.MIL> <9241@star.cs.vu.nl> <1991Mar8.151259.16091@linus.mitre.org>
Sender: usenet@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Network News)
Reply-To: cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee)
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixa.cc.columbia.edu

In article <1991Mar8.151259.16091@linus.mitre.org> dhf@tatum.mitre.org (David H. Friedman) writes:
>.  I've been seeing a lot of discussion here pertaining to specific shareware
>packages, notably 4dos, and having just become a 4dos user myself, I can
>see where it might be time to set up a separate newsgroup for this topic.
>The same might be done for other packages when the message traffic about
>them gets up to a certain level. My understanding is that this newsgroup
>was meant as a companion to comp.binaries.ibm.pc and not as a general forum.

I would have to disagree with this suggestion.  IMHO, to separate out
different subgroups for various popular shareware packages would not
be a good idea.  A couple of months down the road, nobody will have
a question about 4dos.  The group would languish.  Next month's
discussion might be about pkzip (remember the massive encryption
discussion a couple of months ago) or McAffee's virus software.

Don't worry, the 4dos discussion will die down sooner or later.
Besides, we must have something to talk about!!

					Conway Yee, N2JWQ
yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)             231 S. Melville St.
cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)    Philadelphia, Pa 19139
yee@bnlx26.nsls.bnl.gov    (rarely checked)        (215) 386-1312