From: kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron)
Subject: Re: call for a few new newsgroups
    <1992Apr9.03551.7561@ms.uky.edu> <1992Apr10.172559.15005@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:56:57 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
X-Bytes: 

dtiberio@csws17.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:

>In article <1992Apr9.03551.7561@ms.uky.edu> kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
>>dtiberio@csws7.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
>>>	Proposed new groups:
>>
>>>		2. creation of an Amiga 3d group
>>>		3. creation of an Amiga Video Toaster group


>>>GROUP #2 [3d graphics group]
>>
>>you're suggesting five new groups, which is about four too many.

>	I suggested one new newgroup for 3d graphics. I suggested 5 names
>for this one new newsgroup, and was very clear to state that.

My apologies.  Two of the names, c.s.a.imagine and c.s.a.lightwave_3d,
contained what I think are software package names, leading me to believe
you were recommending all of the groups be created.


>>>GROUP #3 [Video toaster group]
>>
>>>Many groups who
>>>do not currently receive Amiga video information can benefit greatly
>>>from this group.
>>
>>Two objections:
>>
>>1)	Groups contain discussion, they don't create it.  Can you show
>>	existing discussion of the toaster sufficient to create a group
>>	devoted the thing?  There already exist several groups devoted
>>	to computer graphics and video production.

>	Is there one devoted to the Video Toaster, which involves
>one system designed for all of the above? Are you saying that Mac/IBM/Amiga
>users should all share the same graphics group? Wouldn't the specific
>hardware and software of the Toaster warrant its own newsgroup?

You've missed the point.  The fact the toaster exists doesn't mean
it automatically deserves its own group.  There are already low-volume
groups devoted to the general purpose the toaster serves.  Unless toaster
discussions are already crowding these groups (not happening) or there's
some mailing list that would crowd these groups if moved there (you've 
offered no argument for this, let alone proof), there is no reason not 
to use the existing groups.

>>2)	The Video Toaster doesn't only run on the amiga (well, it does,
>>	but you know what I mean :-) so why should the group be placed
>>	under comp.sys.amiga?

>	Simply because the Video Toaster runs on the AMiga, and only
>on the Amiga. Anyone who does otherwise is not running a Video Toaster
>on another machine.  Anyone who wishes to interface a Mac with a Toaster 
>is welcome to join the Amiga group...

[Since this has become a point of contention, let me define this
for people who don't know what we're talking about:  The video toaster
is a card that fits in an Amiga 2000 and a set of software to run it.
For people with MS-DOS systems or Macs there is a kit which is just
an Amiga 2000 (relabeled by Newtek), a toaster card, and driver software
to run on the PC or mac.  When you buy one of these kits, you can, if
you want, just forget that you're using an Amiga.]

An Amiga + Toaster essentially forms a standalone black box; this is
even more obvious when you use the Mac or PC versions.  Other than 
Amiga-vs-the-world one-upmanship, there's no reason why the group
has to be under comp.sys.amiga.

By putting it under an existing graphics or video hierarchy, you'll
make it more noticeable and convenient to people interested in these 
topics.  That's the point of group placement, not rubbing peoples'
noses in the fact that the toaster only runs on the Amiga.

However, this isn't a large point.  If the consensus opinion is that
it it go under c.s.a, it can go there.

>>If you can show enough (prospective) volume I'd support the group, but
>>would prefer something like "comp.graphics.video-toaster" or
>>"rec.video.toaster".  Heck, create "comp.graphics.video" or "comp.video" 
>>if you like, and put the toaster group there.

>	comp.graphics.video and comp.video do not relate to the
>Video Toaster specifically.


>>>	7)	To provide information dealing with support in the
>>>	form of 3d objects, 24 bit pictures, and other utilities
>>>	found on FTP sites or posted in uuencoded format.
>>
>>Wouldn't this discussion be more at home in c.s.a.graphics or your
>>proposed 3-d group?  Or must the toasterers be segregated from all the
>>rest of the graphics hackers?

>	The Video Toaster software uses formats that are not 
>necessarily used by every other graphics program. For example,
>Imagine cannot load a Video Toaster 3d object. 

Okay, you've convinced me:  Because the toaster software uses DIFFERENT
FILE FORMATS, it deserves its OWN GROUP.  NOT!


You'll notice that up to now, it's just been you and I posting on this
subject (at least in news.groups).  The lack of other interested parties
is the best evidence that the toaster doesn't deserve its own group.
-- 
Kenneth Herron                                       kherron@ms.uky.edu
University of Kentucky                                  +1 606 257 2975
Department of Mathematics
                                              Flame early, flame often.
Newsgroups: news.groups