Xref: utzoo news.groups:6984 comp.sys.ibm.pc:23601
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!oberon!orion.cf.uci.edu!elroy!gryphon!richard
From: richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Creating comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
Message-ID: <11079@gryphon.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 89 16:41:36 GMT
References: <657@ur-cc.UUCP> <1778@edison.GE.COM>
Reply-To: richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton)
Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 25

In article <1778@edison.GE.COM> rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) writes:
>In article <657@ur-cc.UUCP>, akk2@uhura.cc.rochester.edu 
>(Atul Kacker) writes:
>
>> [stuff deleted].... I think we should create another newsgroup called
>> comp.sys.ibm.pc.programming (or something similar).  
>
>I agree this is needed.  In light of existing USENET practice, I'd
>suggest that the new group be named comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer --
>that would more nearly parallel the existing Macintosh group name.

While suffixing ``.programmer'' is indeed an established practice
with .mac as a precedent, ``.tech'' as a suffix also an older
precedent (rec.autos.tech) ans has the advantage that it's
shorter = less characters to type and transmit.

Besides, from what I've seen in the mac (which split into .mac
and .mac.programmer) and the amiga (which split into .amiga
and .amiga.tech) groups, I'd say the latter makes more
sense.


-- 
                         Corona and foolish drinks.
richard@gryphon.COM   {...}!gryphon!richard   gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov