Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!eci386!jmm From: jmm@eci386.uucp (John Macdonald) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Splitting hairs in (was RE: Splitting Comp.Sys.Mac again) Message-ID: <1990Feb9.190925.6004@eci386.uucp> Date: 9 Feb 90 19:09:25 GMT References: <38423@apple.Apple.COM> <1990Feb7.235821.7263@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <38443@apple.Apple.COM> <1990Feb8.201541.24403@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> Reply-To: jmm@eci386.UUCP (John Macdonald) Distribution: na Organization: R. H. Lathwell Associates: Elegant Communications, Inc. Lines: 73 In article <1990Feb8.201541.24403@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> dks@shumv1.ncsu.edu (D. K. Smith) writes: -> In article <38443@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: -> >dks@shumv1.uucp (D. K. Smith) writes: -> > -> >>In article <38423@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: DS2:> dks@shumv1.ncsu.edu (D. K. Smith) CR :> > chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) DS1:> >> dks@shumv1.uucp (D. K. Smith) writes: DS1:> >> c.s.m.user This general topic group replaces c.s.m. CR :> >I think the group would be ambiguous. I don't think it's obvious what is and CR :> >isn't a user question (especially as compared to .software below, for CR :> >instance. The end result would be a group with a high percentage of CR :> >cross-postings, which isn't good). DS2:> Ok... I will concede on this one. Maybe another name for DS2:> the .general group would be appropriate. I do however DS2:> feel that this would be the place for long discussion DS2:> threads like the Apple of the '90's, GUI improvements, DS2:> and the future thread "Apple without Gasse...The Cause DS2:> and the Affect". DS1:> >> c.s.m.software After all, isn't this what makes the Mac, a Mac! CR :> >unlike .hardware, I find .software ambiguous as well -- there are so many CR :> >pieces it entails that it might encourage cross-posting as well. I think CR :> >.app is better simply because it covers a pretty broad but specific area. DS2:> I do not feel that .software is ambiguous. To me there is a DS2:> very definite line of demarcation between hw and sw. This could DS2:> be the forum for everything from viruses (which affects soft- DS2:> ware), to application sw questions/answers... threads about DS2:> inits, DAs, cdevs, etc could occur here. If I was a newcomer DS2:> to the Mac I would recognize .software as the forum for my DS2:> question about MS Word. I could not say the same thing for DS2:> .app. Do you agree? The ambiguity is not between sw and hw, but between sw and the rest of the current c.s.m stuff (hw is already broken out of c.s.m). The ambiguity is that just about everything currently in c.s.m could be considered (by someone at least) to be related to software. Most of the topics you suggested above for the misc group (I think c.s.m.misc is better than c.s.m.general because it is consistent with the rest of the news hierarchy) would likely be considered appropriate for c.s.m.sw - GUI certainly is software, the Apple of the 90's is software and hardware, Gassee is not software. I think it would be better to use the name c.s.m.applications or c.s.m.programs instead of c.s.m.app to make it clear what the group was about for newusers. The difficulty here is finding a topic to break out that has a clear bound. A group for applications would have a clear separation point that most people would be able to agree whether a discussion belonged there. It would also be easily further sub-divided in the future, either by specific products, or (my preference) by applications areas (spreadsheet, wordprocessing, database, communications, graphics, publishing, ...) In that vein, it might be worth considering moving c.s.m.hypercard into c.s.m.applications.hypercard. Although there may be a debate about whether hypercard is an application or part of the system, you can certainly do a lot of things with in the same way you might do them in a programmable application. Another possible sub-group might by c.s.m.system for discussion of finder, multi-finder, System 7.0, DAs, INITs, DRVRs, Royal fonts, etc. (This might also be a good group to move hypercard into...) -- Algol 60 was an improvment on most | John Macdonald of its successors - C.A.R. Hoare | jmm@eci386