Proposal for an iPad newsgroup
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Adam H. Kerman on 11 Mar 2010 18:53 c_mulholland(a)nym.hush.com wrote: >Michelle, >When all is said and done and proper protocol is/are followed I'll do my >best to have the proper control messages generated to create the ipad >newsgroup, whatever it is called. >I've facilitated it before and probably can facilitate it again. You know, it appears that Michelle is about to start RFD for a Big 8 group. If she does that, then let the Bambies the newgroup message sent, which is their actual job, and not yours. The Bambies are already talking to her directly in this very thread. What on earth makes you think she requires an intermediary?
From: David Empson on 11 Mar 2010 19:09 nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <4b994d69$0$24299$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei > <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > If you exclude carrier specific topics, could the "i-touch" products > > (ipod touch, iphone , ipad) be grouped into a single newsgroup ? Sure, > > some topics would cover only the iphone, and some may cover only the > > ipad (such as bookreader), but wouldn't there be sufficient commonality > > to allow a single group ? (think of all the other applications which > > will be available on all such devices.) > > whatever group is created should cover *all* iphone os devices, not > just the ipad. > > > If Apple had a single word such as "itouch" for its handheld machines, > > then comp.sys.itouch would fit the bill. > > iphone os devices. Hence my suggestion elsewhere in this discussion: 1. Create a new category "comp.mobile" for mobile computing devices. 2. Create a new category under that "comp.mobile.iphone" for devices based on the iPhone OS. 3. Within that category, have at least three groups initially: comp.mobile.iphone.misc comp.mobile.iphone.iphone comp.mobile.iphone.ipad As noted in my earlier post, the iPod Touch doesn't really need its own group, as its features are a subset of the iPhone. The "ipad" and "iphone" groups would be for discussion about issues specific to those devices (including things like cellular networks/plans), while the "misc" group would be for generic discussion about the platform and applications (including iPod Touch). It could be further separated later (like the comp.sys.mac.* groups) if demand warranted. -- David Empson dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
From: JF Mezei on 11 Mar 2010 20:13 David Empson wrote: > comp.mobile.iphone.misc > comp.mobile.iphone.iphone > comp.mobile.iphone.ipad I like the concept of comp.mobile. There would/will be a lot of devices for that. (not just apple's). As a twist: comp.mobile.apple which would encompass all apple "mobile" devices.
From: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on 11 Mar 2010 20:21 On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:13:03 -0500, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote in <4b99951f$0$1568$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>: >David Empson wrote: >> comp.mobile.iphone.misc >> comp.mobile.iphone.iphone >> comp.mobile.iphone.ipad >I like the concept of comp.mobile. There would/will be a lot of devices >for that. (not just apple's). >As a twist: comp.mobile.apple which would encompass all apple "mobile" >devices. I think the "comp.mobile.{genus}.{species}" plan makes good sense. comp.mobile.apple.i* comp.mobile.amazon.kindle Maybe making room for things like this, too: comp.mobile.gps.garmin.misc Marty -- Co-chair of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) <http://www.big-8.org> Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
From: nospam on 12 Mar 2010 01:12
In article <michelle-3A1E99.23073011032010(a)nothing.attdns.com>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > > whatever group is created should cover *all* iphone os devices, not > > just the ipad. > > That's just what some people at misc.phone.mobile.iphone object to; they > would rather see the iPad discussed in a forum other than one devoted to > the iPhone. And that's the reason I floated this discussion. there are some people in that group that object to anything apple. |