Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!xenitec!lemsys!clemon From: clemon@lemsys.UUCP (Craig Lemon) Message-ID: Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware Subject: Re: Another Amiga reorganization needed? Distribution: world References: <9072@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> <1991May31.140016.14308@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <1991Jun16.014324.532@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 20 Jun 91 09:43:02 EDT Organization: Not an Organization In article <1991Jun16.014324.532@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >In my never ending quest to keep the c.s.a.* hierarchy >flat, looking back over this, how about these for a >starting set of names to pick apart? >[...] Why? I find these names horrible to type etc... Not very "ergonomic" ( 1/2 :-) >While I'm doing this, let's pull the idea of >chopping up c.s.a.hardware back into the fire and >the crosspost list, too. Last time, I proposed a >.design, .standard, .3rd-party, and .hackers >subdivision; this gets uglier, 'cause "hardware" >doesn't have a pretty abbreviation, but how about >these as flat subdivision names? > > c.s.a.hdwr-design > c.s.a.hdwr-standard (or hdwr-stock) > c.s.a.hdwr-3rd-party (whew, just made 14 characters) > c.s.a.hdwr-hacking .Design would probably see little traffic except for things like the odd burst of "I want to build this video board" and it's thousands of "You're stupid!" replies. It is a valid group name, however, and would be worth the split because many people really don't care about building hardware but they want to tweak what they own. What would go in .standard? If it doesn't concern modifications, building, or adjusting (hacking), what does it include that you say doesn't belong in .introduction? About -3rd-party, lets work on the name, OK? I assume this would discuss performance and specifications of third party hardware (as well as it's existance (ie. the current X-Pert thread) right? "Hacking" will probably still hold the largest traffic because much of the discussion here is "How can I get this board without a connector to interface with this", or "How can I put my 500 in a tower case" etc...etc..etc... which many would (rightfully) call hacking. As somone stated eralier, this split might see 5-5-10-80 split. >Again, vanilla questions about connecting a disk >driver and hard disk and drive software together >belong in c.s.a.introduction, not .hardware or its >proposed replacements, but it will take some firm >guidance (in EMAIL) to make that happen. Then I think .introduction needs some work. I didn't subscribe to .introduction because I work off of a home node at 2400 bps and I don't like spending 30 minutes or so getting 500 "How do I exit the CLI" questions. Really basic questions belong in introduction but questions about hookups for the best performance, whether a removable device will work with controller X, "how do I add an external SCSI connector to my Hardframe", "What is the lastest firmware for X controller and what does it feature? etc.... should definitely go in hardware. Anything above "What's the wide grey cable for?" questions should go in hardware. > /// It's Amiga > /// for me: why >Kent, the man from xanth. \\\/// settle for > \XX/ anything less? >-- >Convener, COMPLETED comp.sys.amiga grand reorganization. >Here we go again. Yes. let's do it right this time. I'm not saying that the last one was totally wrong but let's not mess this one up with an approach like "We have enough volume in c.s.a.h for 6 newsgroups. Let's create 5 useless ones and then it'll be fixed...." -- Craig Lemon - Kitchener, Ontario. Amiga B2000 UUCPv1.13D. clemon@lemsys.UUCP lemsys!clemon@xenitec.on.ca | Please Mail any binaries xenitec!lemsys!clemon@watmath.waterloo.edu | to 'files' at this site ..!uunet!watmath!xenitec!lemsys!clemon | instead of 'clemon'