Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site looking.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.sf-lovers,net.news
Subject: Re: newsgroup for Dr. Who not deserving of top level
Message-ID: <113@looking.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Dec-83 00:00:00 EST
Article-I.D.: looking.113
Posted: Tue Dec 13 00:00:00 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Dec-83 04:55:05 EST
References: <2376@alice.UUCP>
Organization: Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 41

What is this crap about a group not deserving to be top level.
I have never understood all this business about levels of newsgroups
from the beginning.  First of all, the distribution should not have
been in the newsgroup name.  There are one or two points in favour of
that scheme, but the points against it outweigh them I think.

What are the advantages of these "levels"?  On old software, all they
gave you was the ability to subscribe and unsubscribe in one swoop.
But the introduction of an Unsubscribe command really eliminates the
need for this, I think.  "sub"groups appear slowly as a rule, and are
quite often very different, so unsubscribing is quite easy and desired.

Newer software takes slight advantage of subgroups by making directories
slightly smaller.  How much is gained by this, I don't know.  There is
no reason for using "." as the character to map into slash.  It would be
just as easy to insert a slash every 14 characters in the name, or every 6
or 12 or whatever you like.  The outside world need not be concerned with
such operating-system dependant implementation details.

Now for the disadvantages.  There is constant bickering about what should
be a subgroup of what.  I am amazed at people who say "Make it a subgroup
of net.xxx so I can unsubscribe."  They waste 100s of times more time
and energy posting this than would be required to just type U to the group
when it shows up.

All these subscription "advantages" are more of a pain, if you ask me.
If you want "net.jokes" you've got net.jokes.d whether you ask for it or
not.  In fact, you have to explicitly request NOT to see it.  We all
found out the horrible problems that occurred with net.jokes.q due to
this!

And of course, this doesn't really count as a serious disadvantage, but
old software refuses to allow names over 13 characters, so this subgroup
crap really limits how we can name subgroups.  Thus this net.sf-lovers.drwho
debate.

What a waste of time.  Down with subgroups.  If people really want to
group newsgroups together in some way, let's implement a useful way.
(This message is a silent plug for K news, by the way)
-- 
	Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ontario (519) 886-7304