Xref: utzoo news.groups:16043 comp.sys.ibm.pc:40984
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen
From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: comp.sys.ibm.pc.{tech,programmer,...}
Message-ID: <369@sixhub.UUCP>
Date: 1 Jan 90 19:24:52 GMT
References: <:EXZGDny2@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY
Lines: 32

In article <:EXZGDny2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
| 
| 	comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech
| 	comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
| 	comp.os.msdos

  I humbly suggest that you have one good name and two good group ideas
here. Having a group for MS-DOS, separate from the PC hardware platform
is a good idea. So is having a group for discussion of the hardware
platform independent of MS-DOS.

  Comp.os.msdos is a good name for the o/s group *if that's what you
mean to create*. I would expect that group to contain stuff on the o/s
and generic applications for it (maybe not even the apps).

  A group for the PC hardware platform would also be good for questions
about disk drives, clock speeds, memory installation, etc. I guess the
.tech is the best of the names you have suggested.

  In spite of the .programmer being used in the alt area, it is not a
really good name in terms of "what goes there." I would really like to
see the term .hardware used, but there's no president for it.

  I really think that a descriptive name will help make this group
perform the function which you rightly believe is needed. I would
certainly support two groups, since the catchall group is so cluttered
that it needs a LOT of (well chosen) division.
-- 
	bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
davidsen@sixhub.uucp		...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen

"Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon