Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!snorkelwacker!mintaka!ogicse!decwrl!polyslo!vlsi3b15!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!netnews.upenn.edu!cps3xx!usenet From: usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Call For Discussion: comp.sys.mac reorganization Message-ID: <6526@cps3xx.UUCP> Date: 20 Feb 90 07:45:59 GMT References: <38768@apple.Apple.COM> Reply-To: otto@frith.UUCP (Carl Otto) Followup-To: news.groups Organization: None Lines: 124 In article <38768@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@apple.com (Chuq Von Rospach) posted an official call for discussion regarding reorganizing the comp.sys.mac hierarchy. I'm not going to quote from it at length. Overall, the proposals he presents are well-reasoned and would go a a long way toward improving the current mess in comp.sys.mac. However, I have some quibbles and, IMHO, some improvements to offer. >Proposal 1: rename comp.sys.mac to comp.sys.mac.misc. >Proposal 2: Creation of comp.sys.mac.os. >Proposal 3: Creation of comp.sys.mac.appl. These three proposals all make a lot of sense to me. My quibble here is VERY minor. Chuq says finding a mame for the applications group >created a fair amount of discussion, ranging between app and applications and then states his reasons for settling on `appl'. I would prefer `apps': most of the reasons Chuq gave for `appl' apply equally to it, and in this context, when my brain sees `appl' it wants to put an `e' on the end and launch itself into an infinite loop. :-) There's just something about `appl' that bugs me . . . it itches someplace I can't scratch. >Proposal 4: renaming comp.sys.mac.hypercard to comp.sys.mac.appl.hypercard. Whoa! Hold it right there. Chuq's reasoning on this: >To standardize naming in the new scheme. Technically, since Apple computer >considers Hypercard system software it should be c.s.m.os.hypercard, but I >don't believe most users agree with that thinking. I don't think most users view HyperCard as just an app, either. In article <3996@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (GurgleKat [Pete Gontier]) takes a substantially different view: >I've always thought that comp.sys.mac.hypercard [should be] >comp.sys.mac.programmer.hypercard. I know it's a long name, but it >has an intuitive feel to it for me. I'm not ready to call HyperCard >hackers computer scientists . . . but I don't think HC fits >anywhere else. In article <38783@apple.Apple.COM>, Chuq responds to this: >c.s.m.hypercard's an interesting thing. HyperCard tends to defy >explanation. I generally describe it to people as "the Basic of >the 90's" but that's not really a fair description, either. it was >suggested to me as c.s.m.appl.hypercard, c.s.m.appl.db.hypercard, >c.s.m.p.hypercard -- there are just lots of places where it almost fits. Chuq then gives his reasons for not having HyperCard under c.s.m.p: >there's a lot of functionality and utility [in HyperCard] that has >nothing to do with programming . . . . a lot of users out there . . . >never do any scripting and just use stacks other people write. So, he settled on comp.sys.mac.appl.hypercard. >I could be convinced to change that . . . . Chuq is absolutely right: Hypercard does defy explanation. It also defies categorization. It is neither an application, a language, nor really part of the system. Yet it is coming to be viewed by a sizable proportion of Mac users as integral to the Mac--and if there's any substance at all behind all the `future role of HyperCard and HyperTalk' vapor that's been rolling off the pages of MacWeek, then HyperCard is only going to become more important to the typical Mac user. It simply doesn't make any sense to try to shove HyperCard into an arbitrary category merely for the purpose of `standardizing naming in the new scheme.' My radical proposal: comp.sys.mac.hypercard It works. It works just fine. Leave well enough alone. >Proposal 5: creation of comp.sys.mac.wanted. This is an excellent idea. The reduction in cross-postings which it should engender is much to be desired. For similar reasons, I would like to add another proposal: Proposal 6: creation of comp.sys.mac.conflicts (no, I'm not really attached to that name; I'm sure someone out there in netland can come up with a better one) This would be a place for all those postings about how a particular app and a version of the System don't want to work together, INIT or FONT conflicts, and all that. IMHO, if there's not a special place for these, they'll wind up being cross-posted all over: to c.s.m.os and c.s.m.apps (oops . . . I meant c.s.m.appl :-)), maybe c.s.m.misc. and possibly even c.s.m.programmers. If you agree with me on this one, let Chuq know when you vote on the proposals. In his original posting, he said that he'd like to see 100 votes to put any additional proposals up for the final balloting. If you think I'm off the wall, post reasoned arguments to news.groups; send flames direct. (I love getting mail! :-)) >comp.sys.mac document . . . introduction to the comp.sys.mac hierarchy. Also good thinking. I agree almost entirely with Chuq's reasoning in his list of rejected proposals. I had only one tentative qualm: c.s.m.comm. That was alleviated when I found this: In article <38784@apple.Apple.COM>, Chuq makes these additions to the proposals: >(a) change group name comp.sys.mac.appl to comp.sys.mac.appl.misc. This is > a sub-hierarchy, and we need to avoid what we're trying to fix with the > c.s.m -> c.s.m.misc rename. >(b) add group c.s.m.appl.games for discussion of macintosh games. >(c) add group c.s.m.appl.comm for discussion of communication issues: All of which sound good to me. +-----===-----===-----===-----===-----===-----===-----===-----===-----+ | carl jeffrey otto | Macintosh: the first personal computer | | otto@frith.egr.msu.edu | good enough to criticize. -- Alan Kay | | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | My opinions are my own. Feel free to borrow any that you like; | | but if you do something silly with it, that's your problem. | +-----===-----===-----===-----===-----===-----===-----===-----===-----+