frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) (08/02/90)
I was wondering...
Much of the traffic in comp.arch is RISC-related, but no newsgroup exists
dedicated to RISC-related subjects in general. Maybe no such group is
needed, but I just wanted to check how the readers of comp.arch feel
about creating
comp.arch.risc (or a similar group with a different name)
This might help reducing the size of comp.arch a bit - the traffic
there is IMHO sometimes too heavy.
This is not a formal call for discussion for the creation of this group,
just an informal survey. If you have any opinions on whether or not to
create the group, please reply to me (no need to post to comp.arch).
I will post a summary of the replies when I get back from vacation, sometimes
after Aug 10. If the level of interest is high enough and the number of
replies arguing for the creation is considerably higher than those arguing
against it, I will post a formal "CALL FOR DISCUSSION", to be followed by a
"CALL FOR VOTES" later, according to the guidelines. If either condition is
not met, the suggestion will just be allowed to die.
Also, what about creating
comp.sys.ibm.r6000 (or maybe comp.sys.ibm.s6000)
for the new System/6000 series ? The traffic may not be here yet,
but it seems safe to expect it.
The same applies here - anyone with opinions for/against the creation of the
group is asked to send me a reply.
-frisk
--
Fridrik Skulason University of Iceland |
Technical Editor of the Virus Bulletin (UK) | Reserved for future expansion
E-Mail: frisk@rhi.hi.is Fax: 354-1-28801 | frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) (08/10/90)
I posted a note recently, asking if readers of comp.arch thought that
creating comp.arch.risc or comp.sys.ibm.r6000 might be a good idea.
I received a considerable number of replies:
COMP.ARCH.RISC. There was about an even split between those for and against
the group. As explained in my original posting, I will therefore not
post a "CALL FOR DISCUSSION" or pursue the matter further.
Those arguing for the creation generally gave no reasons, but those arguing
against gave a number of good reasons, including the two below:
* RISC/not RISC is not a relevant way to split comp.arc. If it
is to be split at all, some other split would be better. Some
groups were suggested, but no ideas looked good enough.
* The problem with comp.arch is not the number of articles, but
rather the number of articles that should have been posted in
other newsgroups instead. C-specific stuff (comp.lang.c),
assembly/high-level language stuff (comp.lang.misc) etc.
Very good arguments, so the suggestion will just be allowed to die quietly.
On the other hand, the responses to COMP.SYS.IBM.R6000 were almost all
positive, but most replies suggested .RS6000 instead. Almost everybody
agreed that this group would have to be created at some point in time, the
only question was whether we should wait a while.
The traffic is not here yet, so I will at least wait until we get our first
machine, before doing anything. Then you can probably expect a formal call
for discussion from me, unless somebody else posts it first. Two issues that
need consideration are the name (.r6000 .s6000 .rs6000 - one reply indicated
that RS was offensive somewhere in the world) and the question of moderation.
-frisk
--
Fridrik Skulason University of Iceland |
Technical Editor of the Virus Bulletin (UK) | Reserved for future expansion
E-Mail: frisk@rhi.hi.is Fax: 354-1-28801 |