Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sgi!omni!bob
From: bob@omni.com (Bob Weissman)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Proposing a new "shareware.*" news heirarchy
Summary: Why not biz?
Message-ID: <1860@borabora.omni.com>
Date: 12 Mar 90 19:22:19 GMT
References: <5002@macom1.UUCP> <514@limbo.Intuitive.Com>
Organization: OMNI Solutions, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 22

In article <514@limbo.Intuitive.Com>, taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) writes:
- I suggest the name "shareware.*" which, though it's rather long, 
- leaves no question about the purpose of the heirarchy, and also allows, 
- since it's a new tree, us to organize things like:
- 
- 	shareware.sources.unix
- 	shareware.sources.msdos
    [ stuff deleted ]
- What do people think?  Can we hack out some reasonable set of groups
- and then make an intelligent, rational, and acceptable proposal to 
- 'news.groups' requesting the new heirarchy??  Remember we do have the
- prior examples of the "gnu", "biz" and "alt" heirarchies too...

Aha!  Since shareware is a money-making proposition (at least in
theory), it seems clear that the hierarchy Dave proposes should be
under "biz".  biz is an existing hierarchy for for-profit-oriented
postings.

-- 
Bob Weissman
Internet:	bob@omni.com
UUCP:		...!{apple,pyramid,sgi,tekbspa,uunet}!omni!bob