Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!octopus!pete From: pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Proposed comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech Summary: BAD idea. Split along different lines! Message-ID: <229@octopus.UUCP> Date: 17 May 88 15:34:14 GMT References: <1255@kodak.UUCP> <638@mccc.UUCP> <216@octopus.UUCP> <5697@gssc.UUCP> Reply-To: pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) Organization: Octopus Enterprises, Cupertino CA Lines: 71 [by the way: if you follow up on this discussion, check the Newsgroups: line; I'm sure the comp.sys.misc people don't care much about PC stuff] In article <5624@sgistl.SGI.COM> larry@sgistl.SGI.COM (Larry Autry) writes: > >The unix newsgroups are subdivided. One for wizards and one for neophytes. >If the subject is somewhere in between levels of difficulty then the poster >has a decision to make where to post. Perhaps this group should be divided >into comp.sys.ibm.pc and comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech. Any agreement? Any dissent? Larry provides a very good reason for not splitting this way right in his own posting: splitting groups along wizard/neophyte lines simply causes confusion and lots of cross-posting! If you had a question, who would you rather go to for an answer: the wizards or the neophytes? If you knew enough about stuff to answer other people's questions, would you think of yourself as a neophyte? I made a suggestion in news.groups a few weeks ago regarding this stuff. It was generally received well, but needs polishing; hopefully y'all can help! Here's the gist of it: If we can split the group along *topical* lines, there's a much better chance that the split will be successful [I define success in this case as: People know where to post, and it isn't often in both groups]. My suggestion: Step 1) comp.sys.ibm.pc (or preferably c.s.msdos): for H/W discussions comp.msdos: for Firmware/ S/W discussions Step 2) comp.sys.ibm.pc/c.s.msdos for HW comp.msdos.kernel: for kernel-related discussions (BIOS, DOS calls, interrupts, device drivers, handling TSR's from a guts level viewpoint, DOS bugs, etc. comp.msdos.apps: for other S/W discussions, including applications programming, applications themselves, etc. Step 3) comp.sys.ibm.pc/c.s.msdos as above comp.msdos.kernel as above comp.msdos.apps: for discussions about applications programs (not how-to-program but about the programs themselves) comp.msdos.: for discussions re: applications programming (i.e. not kernel stuff), including .BAT files, the ever-present echo and environment questions, etc. Personally, I'd prefer to skip straight to step 3; we certainly have enough traffic to justify a 1-into-4 split, if it is a good split! The main question I have is: what is a good word for in the above suggestion? I started with placeholders of 'hlevprog' and 'llevprog' (high level programming and low-level programming). Somebody suggested replacing 'llevprog' with 'kernel'. I like that. I haven't had ANY suggestions for a good word that summarizes high-level- programming-issues. HEEEEEEELP! Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746