From: khamer@sumax.seattleu.edu (Kenneth Hamer,,,) Subject: Re: Splitting comp.os.linux: RFD on 26 May Date: 26 May 1993 11:11:22 GMT
> ]Well, I do not use xwindows. I don't really have the hardware or
> ]processor for it, but as new applications come down the pipe, I've found
> ]that sometimes I've become confused on whether an spcific program is for X
> ]or for text-based linux. A few times I've even downloaded programs that
> ]look in on c.o.l.a. only to find after finally reading the documentation
> ]that they actually are for Xwindows.
> ]
> ]I'm not saying xwindows is "bad" or anything, just that I have mucho
> ]trouble at times wading and weeding my way through things to determine
> ]what programs and information pertains to my text-only environment.
>
> No no no please. All discussiong concerning Xwindows on a PC
> should be in comp.windows.x.i386unix.
>
> And I hope that no matter what split we get, that this point is strongly
> emphasized in whatever outline is given to announce the new layout.
I know! We can have groups along the lines of:
Comp.os.linux.discussions.that.I.like
comp.os.linux.things.that.should.be.elsewhere
comp.os.linux.real.problems
comp.os.linux.stupid.newbie.tricks
and so on...
In my mind, the secret to succes with the split is to get the subjects
into as few new groups as is reasonable. Otherwise people will cosspost
simply to get a large enough audience.
so,
.questions is good
.apps is good (remind people of other relevant newsgroups)
.programming?
But not ten new groups.
-Ken
-- ..............................................................................-Kenneth Hamer khamer@sumax.seattleu.edu