mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) (05/11/89)
In article <18154@cup.portal.com> bcase@cup.portal.com (Brian bcase Case) writes: >If John Mashey can post 300+ lines of marketing counter-measures, then I can >post a few lines about my OPINIONS too. >I think these discussions are very interesting, after all, I did read all >of John's posting, but they are nearly completely inappropriate for comp.arch, >IN MY OPINION. Even the note that precipitated John's note was dicey. Well Brian is probably right on this [and I wouldn't have been as long, except I'd just been reading a Cypress brochure that claimed SPARC had "thousands of times more lines of code than all other RISCs put together." among other things that stirred me up.] Maybe it's time for another newsgroup. On looking back on the last few years, I observe that there are at least 3 distinct kinds of discussion: a) Pure architectural questions, opinions, information b) Performance analyses c) Economic and/or industry-structure discussions; competitive arguments over non-architecture issues. What happens is that a discussion starts under a), and then sometimes spins off onto b) or c). Sometimes it starts under c) ["whose computer or way of doing things is better, and why?"] and then either degenerates into name-calling or else somebody throws a lot of DATA at it and that's the end. [Of course, I realize that much of the net awaits such discussions with glee, since light is occasionally generated along with the heat, and since, as far as I can tell, there's no other architecture-newsgroup that has a readership that isn't skewed towards some particular architecture.] For example, this whole sequence started with somebody asking for some objective criteria, a few of us responding with some, and then (over the last week) going MARKETING-OPINION-crazy. Either of the following could be OK: a) Split most of c) off to another newsgroup, allowing an interesting discussion that's getty away from architecture to have a place to go. b) Keep it as is, but urge everybody to avoid repeating OPINIONS that came straight from market-hype literature unless they can supply FACTs to support them. [because, of course, those of us who feel compelled to shoot missiles at such things will still do it, even if we try to keep them shorter. Personally, I have a lot of other things to do, so I'd be happy not to feel compelled to challenge as many such things. non-discussions like: OPINION, OPINION How about some data? OPINION, OPINION, AGAIN Really, how about some real data? OPINION, OPINION, DATA IS ELSEWHERE Please, how about some real data? really get wearisome.] Comments? -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash OR mash@mips.com DDD: 408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman) (05/11/89)
In article <19182@winchester.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes: > >Maybe it's time for another newsgroup. On looking back on the last few >years, I observe that there are at least 3 distinct kinds of discussion: > a) Pure architectural questions, opinions, information > b) Performance analyses > c) Economic and/or industry-structure discussions; competitive > arguments over non-architecture issues. Personally, I wouldn't mind a comp.arch.highend vs lowend. I get bored with the small systems slant of this bboard. [Not that they aren't important!] Also I wouldn't mind a comp.implementation where the discussion lends more toward design rules/tools/pfs and ps....rather than "endianness" or other such stuff. Considering that the lifetime of a computer is approximatly the same as the time it takes to design it, it seems obvious that good tools => more performance. (another facet to RISC vs CISC, too.) <Sigh.> perhaps the real problem is that all the interesting topics are also too important to blabber about on the net....:-) Oh well. Paul K. Rodman rodman@Multiflow.com
bcase@cup.portal.com (Brian bcase Case) (05/12/89)
[In response to my complaint about marketing junk...] >Maybe it's time for another newsgroup. On looking back on the last few >years, I observe that there are at least 3 distinct kinds of discussion: > a) Pure architectural questions, opinions, information > b) Performance analyses > c) Economic and/or industry-structure discussions; competitive > arguments over non-architecture issues. Now this is a productive suggestion. I don't dislike all the marketing stuff because, as John points out, it sometimes leads to enlightening architectural revelations. I would probably never have complained in the first place if such stuff were simply kept SHORT. But marketing stuff is the kind of stuff that you can go on and on and on and on about. Further disclaimer: I don't mean to sound like some self-appointed moderator; I know I am not! It just seemed that people were under a marketing hypnosis....
davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (05/13/89)
John Mashey comments: | Maybe it's time for another newsgroup. On looking back on the last few | years, I observe that there are at least 3 distinct kinds of discussion: | a) Pure architectural questions, opinions, information | b) Performance analyses | c) Economic and/or industry-structure discussions; competitive | arguments over non-architecture issues. bcase@cup.portal.com (Brian bcase Case) writes: | Now this is a productive suggestion. I don't dislike all the marketing | stuff because, as John points out, it sometimes leads to enlightening | architectural revelations. Ok, how about a breakdown into architecture and performance-measurement? It seem that there is enough traffic to make such a split viable... --dave (7 more days to monomania) c-b
chris@softway.oz (Chris Maltby) (05/15/89)
I like the idea. The problem, however, is the usual one: Too much noise. Given the quality of some of the articles posted here, how can we expect the posters to find the right newsgroup? Nevertheless, I'm in favour of it. -- Chris Maltby - Softway Pty Ltd (chris@softway.sw.oz) PHONE: +61-2-698-2322 UUCP: uunet!softway.sw.oz.au!chris FAX: +61-2-699-9174 INTERNET: chris@softway.sw.oz.au