Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.arc.nasa.gov!vsi1!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Another Amiga reorganization needed? Message-ID: <1991Jun23.025503.24587@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 23 Jun 91 02:55:03 GMT References: <1991Jun18.092655.12436@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 34 caw@miroc.Chi.IL.US (Christopher A. Wichura) writes: > While my initial reaction was to just have > c.s.a.problems, thinking about it a bit it seems > to me that one really should have this split up. > After all, in misc and apps one tends to find > quite a few software problems croping up. Thus, > keeping them split would be helpful, at least to > the knowledgeable folk who might be able to answer > the hardware problems and not the software ones. > Now, the question is, where does one put the > problems group for software? Or do we create > c.s.a.problems.{hardware|software|programming|???- > }? The latter is something I don't particularily > care for, myself. Well, problems with _using_ (store bought or hand around) software should be in c.s.a.introduction or c.s.a.applications; the problems with _writing_ software belong in c.s.a.programming.problems, and the problems with hardware belong in c.s.a.hardware.problems, IMHO. Like you, I don't think a c.s.a.problems.* subhierarchy is the way to go. /// 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.