spell@seq.uncwil.edu (Chris Spell) (05/07/91)
RENEWED REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
Unfortunately, due to the fact that the vote for comp.sys.hp48 and
comp.sys.hp48.d was run as a single vote to create two groups, we are
going to run the vote over as multiple parallel votes. The newgroups
for those groups were issued a little prematurely; please remove them
if you have them at your site.
The original call for votes succeeded by 171:56, but the relatively
high number of no votes compared to other outwardly uncontroversial
proposals suggests some problems either with the names or with the way
the previous vote was conducted. So, in this discussion period we
would like to reconsider the names to better fit in the USENET
namespace. Hopefully then, with the vote run as a standard parallel
vote, the main administrative objections will have been fairly
addressed.
Here are the names we propose now:
comp.sources.hp48 moderated, for HP 48-SX source code postings
comp.sys.handhelds.hp48 unmoderated, for general HP 48-SX discussion
comp.sys.handhelds.misc unmoderated, renamed from comp.sys.handhelds
Our primary objective is to provide specific groups for the HP 48-SX;
the renaming of .handhelds is incidental, but not critical to the
proposal. Renaming .handhelds to .handhelds.misc will allow new
handheld groups to be easily created and will match the USENET
namespace more appropriately. Ideas to create groups for other
handhelds should be addressed in another proposal.
HISTORY AND MOTIVATION:
HP 48-SX topics and source code postings dominate comp.sys.handhelds,
often squeezing out worthwhile discussion which is otherwise suitable
for the group. To break out the 48 traffic to its own groups would
allow people who want to post about other machines to not feel
overwhelmed and unheard.
CHARTER FOR comp.sources.hp48:
The purpose of this moderated group is to allow uniform source
postings, informative postings, and anything in general that is worth
archiving. Each posting will have a standard rkive(1) header to
permit automatic archiving of the articles posted.
The moderator will be responsible for posting all articles in timely
fashion. The moderator will attempt to test all source before
posting, and review such postings as time permits. Source will be
posted in asc format, uuencoded if necessary, and rpl or assembly when
available. While every effort will be made to ensure submissions
represent functional code, there is, of course, no guarantee of
function or suitability for purpose by the moderator.
The moderator will maintain a frequently asked questions list which
will be posted on a regular basis to the unmoderated group. The
moderator will attempt to handle simple questions by mail, except when
answers are deemed sufficiently useful to the group to be included in
a digest. This should reduce the volume of such questions in
comp.sys.handhelds.hp48, and afford people who might feel
uncomfortable about posting a "stupid question" a measure of
flame-retardance.
The position of moderator will be held by Chris Spell
<spell@seq.uncwil.edu> until such time as he wishes to name a successor.
CHARTER FOR comp.sys.handhelds.hp48:
This unmoderated group is for general discussions. Anything
permissible within the rules of net etiquette may be posted here
pertaining to the HP 48-SX or such systems sufficiently similar as to
warrant the interest of HP 48-SX users. A frequently asked questions
article will be maintained and posted by the moderator of
comp.sources.hp48.
PROPOSAL SCHEDULE:
This renewed discussion period will last for approximately ten days,
after which a 21 day vote will be held.
SPONSORS:
Chris Spell <spell@seq.uncwil.edu>
Jeff E Mandel <mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu>
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
The authors wish to thank the following individuals, without whose
assistance, this proposal would not be possible:
David C Lawrence <tale@cs.rpi.edu>
Gene Spafford <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>elliott@veronica.cs.wisc.edu (James Elliott) (05/08/91)
What about comp.binaries.hp48? The charters don't seem to leave any room for binary postings, which are kind of important on a machine where few people have uniform access to assemblers. -- Jim Elliott "Like a bridge he'll come between us, not a wall" elliott@veronica.cs.wisc.edu
ruhtra@turing.toronto.edu (Arthur Tateishi) (05/08/91)
In article <4723@ryn.mro4.dec.com> taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) writes: > >..., but if there's going to >be one, how about doing it in a rational manner? Fine, but your suggestion has flaws. >comp.sys.handhelds >comp.sys.handhelds.hp (for *all* HP models) >comp.sys.handhelds.casio >comp.sys.handhelds.ti >comp.sys.handhelds.<others to be named during discussion> I see some immediate problems with this. I presume comp.sys.handhelds.sharp would be among them. When Casio and TI enter the palmtop PC arena you are going to have four newsgroups with a very non-natural split in each between PC oriented and calculator postings. From the initial indications, the HP95 has the potential of matching or exceeding HP48 volume. Therefore, you may want to make provisions for individual machines a la c.s.h.hp.hp48 and c.s.h.hp.hp95. However, these are getting long. This should also make things better for archive sites. I'm not as convinced as you that devoting a newsgroup to one model of one manufacturer is always bad. msdos groups encompass a vast number of different models, etc but they are basically the same machine. One person having a 486 w/ XGA and another an 8088 w/mono is about as important as a user of a stock HP48 versus someone with EqLib + a 512K bank switched RAM card. -- Red Alert. -- Q, "Deja Q", stardate 43539.1 Arthur Tateishi g9ruhtra@zero.cdf.utoronto.edu
bson@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Jan Brittenson) (05/08/91)
In a posting of [8 May 91 02:35:38 GMT] ruhtra@turing.toronto.edu (Arthur Tateishi) writes: > From the initial indications, the HP95 has the potential of matching > or exceeding HP48 volume. Hardly. Perhaps for a few weeks, then the discussion will likely fade away. You don't buy MS-DOS machines to hack on, but to run applications you buy over the counter. The discussion concerning those applications belongs somewhere else. I refuse to read MS-DOS garbage in an HP48 group. The machine is entirely without hack value. On the other hand, I may be wrong, perhaps lots lots of news readers will cough up $600 for an MS-DOS computer. Unlikely, if you ask me, but still possible. Let it prove itself over a period of about a year, like the HP-48 has. The amount of HP-48 postings is likely to continue to increase, especially as HP are replacing the 28S with the 48S. > Therefore, you may want to make provisions for individual machines a > la c.s.h.hp.hp48 and c.s.h.hp.hp95. However, these are getting long. > This should also make things better for archive sites. If HP-95 users want a newsgroup, let them come up with a proposal. The HP-95 bears no relationship with the HP-48. The HP-95 and HP-48 are two entirely different appearances on the market. The HP-48's value lies in the software, and will therefore be around another 5-10 years at least - or does anyone believe that HP is going to start developing its replacement before then - unlikely. The HP-95's marketable characteristic is its hardware. It runs the same MS-DOS as every other clone. It will become obsolete when the competiting clones become obsolete. > I'm not as convinced as you that devoting a newsgroup to one model of > one manufacturer is always bad. msdos groups encompass a vast number > of different models, etc but they are basically the same machine. And that's where the HP-95 stuff belongs. As far from the HP-48 discussions as you can possibly get. -- Jan Brittenson bson@ai.mit.edu
taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) (05/08/91)
In article <15674@life.ai.mit.edu>, bson@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Jan Brittenson) writes: |> > From the initial indications, the HP95 has the potential of |>matching |> > or exceeding HP48 volume. |> |> Hardly. Perhaps for a few weeks, then the discussion will likely |>fade away. You don't buy MS-DOS machines to hack on, but to run |>applications you buy over the counter. The discussion concerning |>those |>applications belongs somewhere else. I refuse to read MS-DOS garbage |>in an HP48 group. The machine is entirely without hack value. On the |>other hand, I may be wrong, perhaps lots lots of news readers will |>cough up $600 for an MS-DOS computer. Unlikely, if you ask me, but |>still possible. Let it prove itself over a period of about a year, |>like the HP-48 has. |> I don't think I agree with you, but the point is moot. The HP95 IS posting to comp.sys.handhelds and certainly overwhelms the non-HP traffic even if it is minor compared to the HP48 traffic. Since the alleged reason for splitting is to allow the non-HP readership to read their (few) postings without having to wade through the postings of people who USE their calculators, then the solution should address more than just the one calculator that is most popular at this moment. |> > Therefore, you may want to make provisions for individual machines a |> > la c.s.h.hp.hp48 and c.s.h.hp.hp95. However, these are getting long. |> > This should also make things better for archive sites. |> |> If HP-95 users want a newsgroup, let them come up with a proposal. [...] The HP48 users did not come up with the proposal to be excluded from comp.sys.handhelds -- that idea was imposed by non-HP users. I doubt that the HP95 users want to be banished either. But the alternative is constant calls for splitting. It seems to make sense (to me) that we should attempt a split that will forestall this crap. I dunno. Maybe you enjoy it.... -- >>>==>PStJTT Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD "Nerd" is so demeaning, I prefer "fashion-impared."
ruhtra@turing.toronto.edu (Arthur Tateishi) (05/08/91)
In article <15674@life.ai.mit.edu> bson@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Jan Brittenson) writes: >. Let it prove itself over a period of about a year, >like the HP-48 has. I think you misinterpreted me. I was opposing a split-by-manufacturer. As you said, and I agree, there is no basis for grouping the hp48 and machines like the hp95. -- Red Alert. -- Q, "Deja Q", stardate 43539.1 Arthur Tateishi g9ruhtra@zero.cdf.utoronto.edu
mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) (05/08/91)
In article <4723@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) writes: > >How pleasant -- another discussion. > Trust me, if we could have avoided it, we would have. >Since it's a call for discussion, it seems that ideas to create other >groups should be considered proper. In specific, now that we've had a >chance to see that the HP95 has at least equal potential to "dominate >comp.sys.handhelds" it would seem that a little more forethought should >be given to the naming scheme. If the traffic for HP95 warrants it, I imagine that it might be possible to do so, but as it has only been around a few days, probably best to wait until the user community is well defined before dealing with that group. As to forethought, you will recall that I started this calling for comp.sys.handhelds.hp, and was convinced that .hp48 was the viable solution by discussion within the group. >It is short-sighted and foolish to create a whole new group for a single >model of a single manufacturer's calculator. First, I believe there are those who would take exception to your demeaning the HP48 as just a calculator. Some of us began programming on machines with less memory and speed than the 48, and which filled a small room. Second, we have no problem with multiple groups for other single machines from a single manufacturer, such as the Macintosh, Amiga, etc. If we were talking about building a new wing of the Library of Congress for books on the HP48, that might be "short-sighted and stupid", but it's just an administrative grouping, and if it doesn't stand the test of history, little harm is done. > >Fortunately the net.gods have sent the original idea back for >reconsideration. I DON'T FAVOR ANY SPLIT AT ALL, but if there's going to >be one, how about doing it in a rational manner? > First, the net.gods major concern was the administration of the vote, and only secondarily the namespace issue. The group mandate is something they are comfortable with the mortals working out. Second, please be honest. When you say "a rational manner", what you really mean is "The Patrick Taber Solution". If there had been a groundswell of support for your position in the last discussion, I would have incorporated your views, but I just didn't see it. I encourage anyone out there to respond on this (preferrably by news, cross-posted to news.groups), as I really want to be fair about this. >This statement of "history and motivation" is pure opinion. There is >nothing to show that any discussion was "squeezed out" by the HP48. >However unfactual the statement may be, the people who make it (over and >over and over) really believe it and I am sure they are acting out of >good faith. IN THEIR OWN INTEREST, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THAT >SINGLING OUT A PARTICULAR MODEL OF CALCULATOR DOESN'T SOLVE THE >PROBLEM. If you wish to characterize this as opinion, that is certainly fair. We did no physical measurements, merely incorporated the views of those who mailed and posted on the subject. My opinion is that, as a person interested in the Sharp OZ-8200, it was unlikely that other users of that machine would persist in subscribing to a group so dominated by the HP48. Thus, while I have occaisonally posted on the subject, I fear that my postings are largely unread, as the HP48 users don't know the answer to my questions, and the Sharp users probably don't persist. To date, I have only detected 4-5 Sharp users in the group, so it would be pointless for us to try to form a group, but if there comes a time when there are 50 of us, I trust we can count on your vote. The point is, the only machine which is clearly ready for its own group is the HP48. > >I made this suggestion during the last discussion period, but it didn't >get much discussion. I make it again, because now we've had a chance to >see how short-term a short-term solution can be. I suggest one umbrella >group followed by specialized groups sorted by manufacturer. The >umbrella group can be used for announcements and comments general to all >users, the sub-groups will let the people who use particular machines to >have a place where they won't have the annoying squeezing out of >worthwhile discussion which is alleged to be happening now. > >comp.sys.handhelds >comp.sys.handhelds.hp (for *all* HP models) >comp.sys.handhelds.casio >comp.sys.handhelds.ti >comp.sys.handhelds.<others to be named during discussion> > Again, you have missed the point. In the last discussion, I explicitly asked the question of the HP28 users "Do you want to be in the HP48 group?" The answer was no. This is not based on personal grooming, it merely reflects the fact that most of what the HP48 community discusses is of little interest to HP28 users (If I mispresent anyones views, I apologize). Having just finished the reading Byte article on the HP95, I believe that there will be about as much commonality of interest between HP95 users and HP48 users as between Apple IIgs users and Mac users. As to creating .casio, .ti, etc., I believe the net.gods would have a fit about creating new groups to serve communities which have not yet manifest their presence. Trust me, when any or those communities form, I will be more than happy to work for the creation of their own groups, but it hasn't happened yet. > >We've seen how much effort it takes to do a split at all. Why not do it >in such a way that it doesn't have to be done again when the >HP<new_number> comes out? You are correct that it takes a lot of effort to do a split. The last one was enough to make me stay in town for the first day of my vacation (I know, the sobbing is almost uncontrollable). The process is one of evolution, and we should not expect that we can create a solution for the ages on any given day. I know there are many opinions out there, including a number who feel c.s.h should be one big group, but face it, 75% of the people who voted last time supported the proposal as written, and a number of those who opposed it did it only because of namespace issues. We believe that the new proposal is an improvement over the last one (in that it won't be vetoed by the Usenet administration). We believe that we understand what the will of the group is on this, but are willing to listen to your suggestions. I do not think that there is sufficient sentiment out there to warrant a wholesale rewrite of the proposal, or to make the split go away, so again, I implore everyone to try to make useful suggestions to strengthen the porposal, and we will do what we can to address your concerns. Jeff E Mandel MD MS Asst. Professor of Anesthesiology Tulane University School of Medicine New Orleans, LA mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu
conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) (05/08/91)
Ug, here we are again! How about just breaking off a comp.sys.sources.handhelds [or whatever it was called]? You see, if the split isn't a clean, there will be a lot of cross-postings between groups. People who used to post in comp.sys.handhelds will post `important' messages to both comp.sys.handhelds.hp48 and comp.sys.handhelds. Said people will then get flamed by those who don't want to see any hp postings at all. Me, I hate swerving around flame wars. Finally, hey look: the traffic here just isn't all that bad. Why do we need a split at all? The danger of causing cross-postings and giving birth to net.self-appointed.police with net.justice flame-wars is just too great. I've seen it happen before. Now, to see how bad things get, try reading comp.arch, guys: it's like sticking your face in a fire hose. Comp.sys.handhelds is pastoral. Use the j key, use kill files, take vitamins and run 5 miles every day ;-). ------ Tom Conte Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing conte@uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois Fast cars, fast women, fast computers
paul+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul J. Dujmich) (05/09/91)
I agree with Tom Conte. I never saw a need to break up the group at all. I did not vote since I felt that I would just go along with the majority in what ever they decided. Now I'm angered that the discussions about forming new groups are taking more net bandwidth than the 48 dominated net ever did. If it ain't broke....don't fix it! (Use the 'N' key..thats what it's for). Paul Dujmich Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA.
conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) (05/09/91)
In article <15674@life.ai.mit.edu>, bson@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Jan Brittenson) writes: > In a posting of [8 May 91 02:35:38 GMT] > ruhtra@turing.toronto.edu (Arthur Tateishi) writes: > > > From the initial indications, the HP95 has the potential of matching > > or exceeding HP48 volume. > > Hardly. Perhaps for a few weeks, then the discussion will likely > fade away. You don't buy MS-DOS machines to hack on, but to run > applications you buy over the counter. The discussion concerning those That's impossibly naive. Of course the HP-95LX will generate a lot of traffic for quite a while. There is plenty of trafic generated by non- hacking users of computing platforms to keep many a newsgroup running. [ Not throwing this at you directly, Arthur, but... ] Perhaps the reason we can't agree on how to split the group is that none of the ideas make sense! We each are looking for different, overlapping information in this group. If it doesn't cleave easily.... Again, the issue is why split at all? This newsgroup is just not that trafficy to warrent such a split. The danger of creating cross-posting wars and evil self-appointed posting police are too great in my mind to justify a split. When the traffic in comp.sys.handhelds reaches the hights of the famous comp.sys.amiga of five years ago, *then* lets talk about splitting. Learn to use the J key, read up on kill files. ------ Tom Conte Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing conte@uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois Fast cars, fast women, fast computers
es2j+@andrew.cmu.edu (Edward John Sabol) (05/10/91)
I also agree with Tom Conte. I feel there is no need for this split. A split would only cause unnecessary problems and hassle. Bandwith is not nearly as large as most groups. Rec.arts.tv has this convention where you put an abbreviation for the shows name in the subject heading, so that people can use their kill files to kill messages about TV shows they don't like. >If it ain't broke....don't fix it! (Use the 'N' key..thats what it's for). I agree 100%. +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | Edward J. Sabol | Arpa: es2j+@andrew.cmu.edu | | Carnegie Mellon University | Bitnet: es2j@ANDREW.BITNET | +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | "The streets that Balboa walked were his own private ocean and Balboa | | was drowning." - August Wilson | +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
bdahlen@zephyr.cair.du.edu (Robert L. Dahlen - U. of Denver USA=) (05/10/91)
In article <8c_IULi00Uh7E0qYpT@andrew.cmu.edu> paul+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul J. Dujmich) writes: >If it ain't broke....don't fix it! (Use the 'N' key..thats what it's for). It is broken. So let's fix it. I like the c.s.h.calcs, c.s.h.palmtops, etc. I just don't care about calcs and I tire of pushing keys in general. Casual users of "handheld" computers ar sick of 48.this, 48.that, etc. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert L. Dahlen - Director, Information Systems & Technology University of Denver - Denver, Colorado 80208 (303) 871-4385 INTERNET:bdahlen@du.edu BITNET:bdahlen@ducair
conrad@popvax.uucp (M20400@c.nobili) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May9.221044.18340@mercury.cair.du.edu> bdahlen@zephyr.cair.du.edu (Robert L. Dahlen - U. of Denver USA=) writes: >In article <8c_IULi00Uh7E0qYpT@andrew.cmu.edu> paul+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul J. Dujmich) writes: >>If it ain't broke....don't fix it! (Use the 'N' key..thats what it's for). > >It is broken. So let's fix it. > >I like the c.s.h.calcs, c.s.h.palmtops, etc. >I just don't care about calcs and I tire of pushing keys in general. >Casual users of "handheld" computers ar sick of 48.this, 48.that, etc. >-- Hmmm. I think there might be some merit to this. No matter what people say and no matter what the facts, I still think of machines like the HP41, HP28 and HP48 as "calculators". Yeah, I know that they really are "computers", but who actually thinks that way? I agree with Robert but from a different perspective. I personally am excited only by the "calculators" at the moment. What excites me is all the built in power for the engineer. And yet there is still the generality and flexibility to program more general things like personal information managers and such.... I can't imagine anything more tiresome than a PeeCee compatible palmtop.... (I am both a 41 hacker from years past and a Mac owner (though by no means ignorant of PeeCee technology).) I guess what struck me in Robert's suggestion was the sound of his newsgroup names. I think the distinction that I (and others?) enjoy IS the "calculator" or "not calculator" one. I guess I would extend "calcs" to "calculators" just to be more descriptive. I think then that what we have left, "calculators" and "palmtops" is a nice clean break. There are definitely two different types of machine in there (IMHO). Now, of course, it seems obvious to drop the "hand- helds" portion of the name. It seems like there is a "jagged continuum" from mainframes to minis to workstations to desktop machines to luggables to port- ables to laptops to palmtops to calculators. Yeah, I know, there are some holes in this. Like that the parts of the Howard Hathaway Aiken/IBM Mark I Sequence Controlled Calculator that we have here at Harvard dominate the lobby of the computation laboratory. But I think that most of us think of a small machine that can be held in one hand and operated by the other when we hear the word "calculator". I guess it seems that c.s.p and c.s.c would fit in well with c.s.laptops. And the resultant names wouldn't be that long.... It sounds like HP28 owners earier expresed a lack of interest in HP48 stuff? I know that I am interested in ALL of the calculator information. I don't own all of the models but am still very interested in them all. Are there others who feel this way? HP28 owners aren't jealous are they? I guess someone got it earlier when he alluded to the "hack value" of something like the HP48. Personally I think a souped up calculator on steroids is much cooler than a palmtop. A palmtop is just a wimpy laptop as far as I can tell. And a laptop tries very hard to be a desktop computer but usually fails. Does anyone else out there agree with the calculator/laptop distinction? And that the handhelds bit could be dropped? I have intended to be somewhat ;-) inflammatory in this posting, as I am trying to promote a split on these lines. I think that this distinction is a more real one than religious manufacturer divisions. I like calculators. If it can't _really_ calculate it's just a palmtop information manager or computer.... I hope nobody takes grave offense at this! I really love ALL of this stuff! >------------------------------------------------------------------- >Robert L. Dahlen - Director, Information Systems & Technology >University of Denver - Denver, Colorado 80208 (303) 871-4385 >INTERNET:bdahlen@du.edu BITNET:bdahlen@ducair +---- C o n r a d C . N o b i l i ----+ | | | Harvard University | Internet: conrad@harvarda.harvard.edu | | Office for Info. Tech. | conrad@popvax.harvard.edu | | Information Services | BITNET: CONRAD AT HARVARDA | | Technical & User Services | CONRAD AT HARVSPHB | | 1730 Cambridge Street | voice: (617) 495-8554 | +---- Cambridge, MA 02138 | fax: (617) 495-0715 ----+
taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May9.164919.19132@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) writes: |>Again, the issue is why split at all? This newsgroup is just not |>that |>trafficy to warrent such a split. The danger of creating |>cross-posting |>wars and evil self-appointed posting police are too great in my mind |>to |>justify a split. When the traffic in comp.sys.handhelds reaches the |>hights of the famous comp.sys.amiga of five years ago, *then* lets |>talk |>about splitting. |> |>Learn to use the J key, read up on kill files. |> If enough people would stand up and say this, we could kill the split in the discussion stage. (If enough people voted this way the last time, we wouldn't be goign trough it again now.) If you think the idea is no good, SAY SO. If it gets to a vote, VOTE AGAINST IT. In the last "discussion" stage, there was damn little discussion. Jeff Mandel claims that he got a lot of private correspondance and shaped the proposal based on that. But there was very little PUBLIC discussion, and certainly the proposal that got voted on was as little discussed as the alternate plan I offered. If you want to see the split happen or not happen or happen some other way, POST A RESPONSE. If this is going to reflect the will of the readership, the readership has to speak up. And the reason for discussion periods is to have the readership speak in public where ideas can be formed into something that (with luck) will satisfy the majority of the readership. -- >>>==>PStJTT Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD Speak if ye will be heard
mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May9.164919.19132@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) writes: > >Learn to use the J key, read up on kill files. > You presume that all people who read this group are on Unix hosts with unlimited disk space and direct high speed access to the InterNet. This simply is not the case. Many readers are UUCP nodes (with 2400 baud lines), or getwayed from BBSs, etc. To assume that the kill file solution is available to everyone is naive. In any event, for it to work as perfectly as you wish, everyone would have to conform to some standard for subject line, such as "HP48 Prog:", etc., and that invites your dreaded posting police as well, and does nothing for the individual who is downloading 50 messages a day via UUCP only to find they are all getting killed. The real question is, how much of the HP48 programming stuff do you really think is interesting enough to non-HP48 users, and why would it occur to anyone to cross-post it? I am sure that there are some issues from the HP48 community that are of interest to the entire group, but as much of it really only makes sense if you have the machine, and there is a large enough group of people out there to support it, why do you see such a problem in creating an HP48-specific group? If you want to read both groups, are concerned about cross-postings, and are such a clever boy about kill files, write one that kills cross-postings. Jeff E Mandel MD MS Asst. Professor of Anesthesiology Tulane University School of Medicine New Orleans, LA mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu
LEIF@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (05/11/91)
There is a simple kind of poetic grace in the idea of: comp.sys.calculators comp.sys.palmtops I too feel a posessive sort of nostalgia for the old "handhelds" title, but a split along the above lines makes a long term kind of sense. Then if the c.s.calculators group wants to split the 48sx people off into c.s.c.hp48sx.or.something then so be it! Leif Johnson leif@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
herman@corpane.uucp (Harry Herman) (05/14/91)
Why stay in the comp.sys.handhelds section, why not move to the comp.sys.hp section? When I first started reading news, I started looking for groups that talked about the HP28, and then the HP48. I naturally started with comp.sys.hp, which apparently is for their computers. The only reason I even found out about comp.sys.handhelds was that EduCalc advertised the HP BBS for the HP48, and the HP BBS carries an echo of comp.sys.handhelds. We could have comp.sys.hp.calculators and comp.sys.hp.palmtops (or comp.sys.hp.hp48 and comp.sys.hp.hp95). I noticed that comp.sys.ti has a subgroup called comp.sys.ti.explorer, and comp.sys.zenith has a subgroup comp.sys.zenith.z110, so having subgroups under the comp.sys.hp group would seem reasonable to me. Harry Herman herman@corpane
woodhams@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Michael Woodhams) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May13.223400.28948@corpane.uucp> herman@corpane.uucp (Harry Herman) writes: >Why stay in the comp.sys.handhelds section, why not move to the >comp.sys.hp section? When I first started reading news, I started >looking for groups that talked about the HP28, and then the HP48. I >naturally started with comp.sys.hp, which apparently is for their I had exactly the same problem. It is not at all obvious from the name that comp.sys.handhelds is the correct group for HP calculator stuff. I like the comp.sys.calc comp.sys.palmtop idea. The two types of machine are quite different and I see no logic in their being in the same group. Michael W
conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May13.223400.28948@corpane.uucp>, herman@corpane.uucp (Harry Herman) writes: > Why stay in the comp.sys.handhelds section, why not move to the > comp.sys.hp section? Ah, time for history! Comp.sys.handhelds was created because the calculator junkies were *kicked* out of comp.sys.hp (which might also have been appropriately named comp.sys.hpux.is.crap). > When I first started reading news, I started > looking for groups that talked about the HP28, and then the HP48. I > naturally started with comp.sys.hp, which apparently is for their > computers. The only reason I even found out about comp.sys.handhelds was that > EduCalc advertised the HP BBS for the HP48, and the HP BBS carries an echo of > comp.sys.handhelds. We could have comp.sys.hp.calculators and > comp.sys.hp.palmtops (or comp.sys.hp.hp48 and comp.sys.hp.hp95). > > I noticed that comp.sys.ti has a subgroup called comp.sys.ti.explorer, and > comp.sys.zenith has a subgroup comp.sys.zenith.z110, so having subgroups > under the comp.sys.hp group would seem reasonable to me. > Not the same think *because* we're not talking about one type of machine or architecture. These little guys are quite different in architectures. Nor are we talking about one manufacturer: I've seen casio and TI calculator posts to .handhelds before too. Again, (and I am sorry, Jeff, but I still cannot see the *dislogic* of the following) splitting, comp.sys.calculators comp.sys.palmtops makes sense, cleaves the two warring factions, is logical within the scope of usenet naming practices (given what I have stated above: the belief in one type of machine is mythical!), and dag nammit, SHOULD BE PUT TO A VOTE! > > Harry Herman > herman@corpane ------ Tom Conte Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing conte@uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois Fast cars, fast women, fast computers