Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!polecat.llnl.gov!randy
From: randy@polecat.llnl.gov (Randy Futor)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Call For Discussion: comp.sys.mac reorganization
Message-ID: <49348@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 20 Feb 90 19:41:57 GMT
References: <38768@apple.Apple.COM> <3996@hub.UUCP> <38783@apple.Apple.COM> <1990Feb20.032350.24690@eng.umd.edu> <38788@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: randy@polecat.llnl.gov (Randy Futor)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab.
Lines: 25

chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>Why not just leave it c.s.m.hypercard . . .

>The rationalization was that it was more of an application than a part of
>the os (Apple's bundling as system software notwithstanding) . . .

Before I was done with the thread, another poster used the phrase that came
first to my mind when thinking about what to do with the HC group(s), to wit,
leave well alone.  HC is sorta OS, sorta application -- leave it between the
2 in the namespace to reflect that.

It's not an attempt to be clever & it does mean doing one less thing at this
stage -- as a consequence, I like it!    ;-}

 -- randy@polecat.llnl.gov                     futor@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov

ps:  As someone else pointed out ( I apologize for dropping your article in
  my haste! ), the OS stuff should be routed to comp.os.mac which *will*
  mean changes outside the c.s.m realm;  this shouldn't be a major deal
  though, since  a) it *is* an operating system, opinions to the contrary
  notwithstanding ( or should that be "not *worth* standing"?? ;-) &  b)
  there does seem to be sufficient traffic to justify its creation.

 -- just a couple of thoughts -- R