Xref: utzoo news.sysadmin:688 news.groups:3914
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!mit-eddie!bu-cs!purdue!umd5!mimsy!oddjob!ncar!ames!oliveb!pyramid!fmsrl7!mibte!mcf!shan
From: shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.groups
Subject: Re: Binary groups need their own hierarchy
Summary: Okay so we need a binary hierarchy, so when do we start voting? ;-)
Keywords: bin.* hierarchy
Message-ID: <231@mcf.UUCP>
Date: 20 May 88 14:36:12 GMT
References: <397@pan.UUCP> <5284@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Reply-To: shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: michigan cancer foundation, detroit mi 48201 (313) 833-0710
Lines: 35

In article <5284@sdcrdcf.UUCP> faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel P Faigin) writes:
>I have also been thinking carefully about the binary problem, and
>have come to the same conclusion.

Me too!

> If we were to put binaries in
> their own top level heirarchy, we would:
>1) Eliminate a lot of the clutter in the comp. heirarchy
>2) Allow easier segregation of binaries to those sites that wish
>   to carry them.
>3) Quite possibly, simplify archival and expiration.

There maybe more reasons, the 3 above should suffice to start
some action.

>I think it may be
>time to split comp. into comp. for technical ascii discussions,
>and bin. for binaries.
 
All of the above seem very excllent suggestions to me.

Okay so when do we start voting on the binary hierachy and who will 
collect votes? I guess we need some discussion time to decide on some
appropriate names, etc.

Hmmm...how about bin.ibm.pc
		 bin.your.favorite.box
		 and so on...

-- 
sharan kalwani, vax facility, mcf, 110 east warren avenue, detroit mi 48201
usenet  : ...!{uunet!umix, pur-ee!iuvax, ucbvax!mtxinu, ihnp4!mibte}!mcf!shan
internet: shan%mcf.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu         	shan@mcf.uucp
dec enet: decwrl::"umix.cc.umich.edu!mcf!shan"	  	fax: (313) 831-8714