Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!gatech!udel!princeton!mccc!pjh
From: pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Proposed comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech
Message-ID: <675@mccc.UUCP>
Date: 19 May 88 17:08:13 GMT
References: <1255@kodak.UUCP> <638@mccc.UUCP> <216@octopus.UUCP> <5697@gssc.UUCP> <229@octopus.UUCP>
Reply-To: pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg)
Organization: The College On The Other Side of Route 1
Lines: 21

In article <229@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes:
...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.<something>: for discussions re: applications programming
...		(i.e. not kernel stuff), including .BAT files, the ever-present
...		echo and environment questions, etc.

How about:
	comp.sys.ibm.pc for h/w
	comp.msdos.kernel as you've suggested
	comp.msdos.programs for discussions of distributed (i.e., PD,
begware, or commercial) programs
	comp.msdos.shell for discussions on BATs, echo, environment, 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!

I agree.