Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!mit-eddie!attctc!jolnet!swan
From: swan@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Joel Swan)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Call for discussion: Amiga Newsgroup Reorganization
Message-ID: <2564@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US>
Date: 27 Dec 89 08:56:34 GMT
References: <108.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us> <565@sagpd1.UUCP> <114.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us> <27751.2591a982@drunivac.uucp> <22710@ut-emx.UUCP> <878.25936d89@dayton.saic.com> <2625@draken.nada.kth.se>
Reply-To: swan@jolnet.UUCP (Joel Swan)
Organization: Media Specialties Ltd.
Lines: 57

In article <2625@draken.nada.kth.se> ludde@nada.kth.se (Erik Lundevall) writes:
:In article <878.25936d89@dayton.saic.com> fac2@dayton.saic.com (Earle Ake) writes:
:>In article <22710@ut-emx.UUCP>, jonabbey@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Abbey) writes:
:>> I say put lets officially put out a call for discussion of splitting
:>> c.s.a.t into .hardware and .programmer groups.
:>
:>I like the above split to the four groups as well.  Something with the word 
:>'tech' in it doesn't really mean much as most of us are technical people.  
:>Does this mean that everything I post goes there?  I am in favor of the 
:>.hardware, the .programmer, and the .arts categories.  When we call for a 
:>vote, let's also include the .arts creation as well.
:
:I agree that a change of c.s.a.tech to c.s.a.programmer (or c.s.a.programming)
:could be a good thing, and a new group called c.s.a.arts might also be good.
:But the discussion was about creating comp.sys.amiga.hardware, let's keep to
:that one. 

I find this an impossible task seeing that we would then have c.s.a.tech AND
c.s.a.hardware.  Which do you then post to?  Talk about cross posting -- this
would do it.  I don't think we can divorce talk about c.s.a.hardware and
a re-naming or re-grouping of c.s.a.tech.  

If we do go with c.s.a.hardware, and c.s.a.tech is changed (I don't see how we
could logically keep from changing it), we would almost certainly need a 
logical counter part to c.s.a.hardware in the "technical" realm.  Hence,
c.s.a.programming.

I think the original call for discussion on c.s.a.hardware and ONLY 
c.s.a.hardware may have been a little bit short sighted.  I cannot keep to
that one topic.  Changing c.s.a.tech MUST come into play.

As for Peter's problem with MMU questions...
post in the group the would most likely have the answer.  If it's a question
that would most probably take a software answer, post it in c.s.a.programming.
In the mean time, there would be LOTS of clearly defined hardware specific
and clearly defined software specific issues.  This division would neatly
divide them up for the "hardeware" techies and the "software" techies.
(remember how often you hear "since I'm not a hardware guy...")

:>_____________________________________________________________________________
:>             ____ ____    ___
:>Earle Ake   /___ /___/ / /     Science Applications International Corporation
:>           ____//   / / /__                 Dayton, Ohio
:>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
:>Internet: fac2%dayton.saic.com@uunet.uu.net    uucp: uunet!dayvb!fac2
:
:
:-- 
:-Erik Lundevall                  Internet: ludde@nada.kth.se
: SnailMail: Korsbarsvagen 4B/422,S-114 23 STOCKHOLM,SWEDEN
: BBS: +46 8 348523  300-2400 bps  (Camelot - Swedens first Amiga BBS)
: "If you can't convince them, confuse them" -Harry Truman

I also support comp.sys.hardware, but only if c.s.a.tech is revamped to keep
from creating more confusion.

Joel Swan