Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: A new idea for USENET? Message-ID: Date: 6 Feb 90 23:41:45 GMT References: <5633@barn.COM> <1990Feb5.224637.18524@utzoo.uucp> <5115@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1990Feb6.172656.16058@utzoo.uucp> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 14 In article <1990Feb6.172656.16058@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > What you're really saying is "get all the garbage I don't want off in a > top-level group by itself where I can ignore it", or possibly "get all > the good stuff that I do want into one pile so I can pick it up easily". Well, more or less true. Not quite a fair characterisation, but true. If the piles are well-designed, then it will help more people than it will hinder. It's less important whether the piles are in their own top level hierarchy or are second-level divisions... there are certain natural partitions that aren't currently being used: the mini/workstation versus home computer division, for example, or networks versus serial protocols: should comp.protocols.kermit and comp.protocols.tcpip really be in the same second-level group? And there are groups in .dcom that really do want to go with tcpip. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'