 | | Re: lugnet.duplo/toolo —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) Well, IMHO, if you decide to institute these groups using this prefixing, I'd argue that lulgnet.trains should be renamed to lugnet.lego.system.trains rather than there being two groups. Ditto for mindstorms, and for starwars for that matter (...) (26 years ago, 27-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: lugnet.duplo/toolo —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | (...) It'll mean I will never be able to cross-post using slrn. No way I'm going to try to remember all those x.x.x.x.x.whatevers so I can type them in manually. Not everybody uses pretty little graphical clients with pull-down menus of all the (...) (26 years ago, 27-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: lugnet.duplo/toolo —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Some questions: Are you likely ever to want to crosspost between more than two of these groups at a time? How many groups are likely to crosspost to most often, and how likely are you to become familiar quickly with the names of these groups? (...) (26 years ago, 27-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: lugnet.duplo/toolo —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | (...) This wasn't addressed to me, but I think the disadvantage of unclarity of the abbreviations outweigh the advantage of brevity. What I think there are is too many levels in the hierarchy. Does system - for example - have to be included? (26 years ago, 27-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: lugnet.duplo/toolo —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Maybe it doesn't need to be included as a physical category; maybe it could get by as a virtual category for the sole purpose of "correct" organization of official LEGO product programmes. I'll have to consult the wonderful list Joshua made (...) (26 years ago, 28-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: lugnet.duplo/toolo —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | (...) I _rarely_ crosspost now, so I'm not sure. Chances are low, I'm sure. (...) Few and fairly. (...) Hrmmm... not really sure, but then again, I'm the kind of person who can remember all the IP addresses of the machines in my office and at home (...) (26 years ago, 28-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: lugnet.duplo/toolo —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) That's what I'm hoping people will say generally. Not too much talk of DUPLO trains in the lugnet.trains group anyway, right? (...) This one is a real challenge because of the gatewayed lego-robotics mailing list and because the current (...) (26 years ago, 27-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: lugnet.duplo/toolo —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) No. Use fully spelled out names, they are easier to remember. We don't all use "I" for variable names any more, either. But my real point didn't come across very clearly. I think lugnet.trains, with a charter that allows both system, and (...) (26 years ago, 28-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Product line granularities and parallel newsgroups —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Also, from the AR standpoint, totally spelled-out names are virtually guaranteed to be forward-compatible with all future names. For example, imagine if it was 1989 and MT meant Model Team, and along came M:Tron. :) (...) I agree with that. (...) (26 years ago, 28-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Product line granularities and parallel newsgroups —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) I'm not exactly an NNTP expert, but a header-field sounds like a very cool idea, because it would allow posts about specific sets to appear in any newsgroup. If Mr. Gonzalez posts one of his way-cool alternate models in lugnet.cad.dat, he (...) (26 years ago, 29-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Product line granularities and parallel newsgroups —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | Todd's very detailed post shows he's thinking about all this so I won't worry for now. I'm just not sure that the nntp technology will stretch all the way to an arbitrary setup (of groups and their associativities) controlled by metadata. If it (...) (26 years ago, 31-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
