From: hugh@kink.PhaedraV.On.Ca (Hugh D. Gamble)
Newsgroups: alt.sys.amiga.uucp
Subject: Re: proposal alt.sys.amiga.cnews/cnews.patches
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:09:30 EST
 <1h3i0uINN4tq@uwm.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Phaedra V

In article <1h3i0uINN4tq@uwm.edu>, Gregory R Block writes:

> With the coming of SANA-II and new network software, and the growing
> demand for networking across the ENTIRE Amiga community, people have

I don't see how SANA II will affect user demand. A new SANA II version
of an existing networking product may make application developers
happy, but it isn't going to affect whether everyone rushes out to buy
an expansion box and ethernet card to connect the A500 in their rec
room with the A4000 in their study. Now the availability of mumble
mumble might encourage new network applications if homogeneous Amiga
networks gain popularity in classrooms. In any case this has little
relation to uucp or usenet news. For now, networking fits under
comp.sys.amiga.datacomm. If there's ever a need to split out a
separate .networking, then we can do it.

> I propose not a "uucp" group, which is merely a facet of what
> networking is on the amiga, but a different group altogether.
> 
> Comp.sys.amiga.networks should become a reality.

How would that fit with comp.sys.amiga.datacomm? Do we really want to
merge everything already covered in .uucp into a more general group?
Many people here have been arguing for splitting .uucp into more
specific groups rather than going the other way.

> This could cover ALL Amiga networking software, from ParNet, to DNet

So you want to take them out of .datacomm? What would be left in
.datacomm?

> (which has been seeing increased usage as of lately due to some
> innovative software being made as servers for it, and ports across

I was a little shocked when I saw an IRC client for DNET. DNET is, um,
interesting, but I'd much rather run an IRC client over IP.

> There is going to be a leap of information in this area, and if one is
> not created in anticipation of this group, you're going to see a lot
> of scattered posts about it.

That would be nice, but it's not usually reasonable to create new
usenet groups based on hopeful expectations of the future. If Amiga
networking becomes a really hot topic, we can split up .datacomm into
.telecomm and .networking, or something. Let's wait for an exhibited
need first.

> I'll take SLIP and GfxBase's X as an example.  How many times have you
> heard about it?  More importantly, where?  It varies, from
> comp.sys.amiga.applications, to comp.sys.amiga.datacomm, and even in
> .programmer.  Now, I'm not proposing getting GfxBase their own group

That will always happen. People's interests and needs cover different
groups and there are cross posts and posts in the groups that people
consider "home".

> Lets do it now, and not wait for 3.1 to flood our mailboxes and nntp
> servers with things that are off-topic with nowhere to go...

No, lets wait. Here's something for people to do before proposing new
groups: Look at what other computer specific hierarchies are doing and
how they're split up. net.voters are big on consistency and precedent
as arguments for the usefulness of a new group.

-- 
# Hugh D. Gamble  UUCP: hugh@kink.UUCP  Domain: hugh@kink.PhaedraV.On.Ca     %
# AMIX: HGAMBLE  bix: hgamble  voice: +1 416 267 6159                        %
#                                                                            %
#                      CONSPICUOUS SILENCE HERE                              %