mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) (05/15/91)
1) Despite the strongly held views of some that there is a common interest amongst all HP calculator users, there has not been a groundswell of HP28, 41, etc. users saying that they need to be in with the HP48 users. Having previously attempted to get support for .hp2848, and having failed, I believe that this is not the option most likely to satisfy the majority. 2) I believe that it will be impossible to understand what other machines, architectures, or broad classes of machines need to have new groups until we have dealt with the volume of HP48 traffic. No one can contest the fact that the major volume of postings to this group over the last year have been HP48; that a significant portion of the readership of this group have as their main interest HP48 issues, and that anyone who is not interested in the HP48 has a hard time in this group. 3) I know that the HP95 is a new hot interest, and we may need a group for it some day, but to do so now is premature. There is not another machine whose volume of traffic has even come close to the level where a news group of its own is warranted. I am sorry that the majority of you are having to read so many rehashings of harrangues from the last discussion, but unfortunately there are those who have deemed it necessary. Aside from the HP IR printer issue (which probably can be resolved by application of common sense), are there any compelling reasons why an HP48-only group will cause problems now? 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) (05/16/91)
In article <7498@rex.cs.tulane.edu>, mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) writes: > 1) Despite the strongly held views of some that there is a common interest > amongst all HP calculator users, there has not been a groundswell of HP28, 41, > etc. users saying that they need to be in with the HP48 users. Having > previously attempted to get support for .hp2848, and having failed, I believe > that this is not the option most likely to satisfy the majority. Jeff, I believe you have neglected the traffic on handhelds from vintage calculator collectors. Even today there were postings relevant to the HP-33C. A split for *one* model of one kind of handheld is a mistake, IMHO. There have been more suggestions for a split besides .hp2848. Some of these ideas were quite good (see below!), yet you haven't acknowledged them. Lets do this RFD right so we don't have to go through this a third time, ok? > 2) I believe that it will be impossible to understand what other machines, > architectures, or broad classes of machines need to have new groups until we > have dealt with the volume of HP48 traffic. No one can contest the fact that > the major volume of postings to this group over the last year have been HP48; > that a significant portion of the readership of this group have as their main > interest HP48 issues, and that anyone who is not interested in the HP48 has a > hard time in this group. Again, I submit to the net.gurus: what traffic? Each day, maybe, I get 20 messages in comp.sys.handhelds. That's not a deluge, by any means. > 3) I know that the HP95 is a new hot interest, and we may need a group for it > some day, but to do so now is premature. There is not another machine whose > volume of traffic has even come close to the level where a news group of its > own is warranted. > > I am sorry that the majority of you are having to read so many rehashings of > harrangues from the last discussion, but unfortunately there are those who have > deemed it necessary. Come now, this is rather almost rude, wouldn't you say? You seem to be suggesting that the RFD be quiet, and that we all submit to your will. I `deemed it necessary' to participate in this discussion because (1) the community that participates in comp.sys.handhelds seemed confused what exactly was going on, (2) I just don't see the need for a split in this newsgroup. Let me amend (2). Someone (sorry for the lack of acknowledgement) suggested: comp.sys.palmtops comp.sys.calculators I support this. How many others do? > Aside from the HP IR printer issue (which probably can be > resolved by application of common sense), are there any compelling reasons why > an HP48-only group will cause problems now? > Again, a bad split causes cross-postings and self-appointed net-police who start flame wars about cross-postings. A HP-48 only group would result in cross-postings of HP-related items to comp.sys.handhelds. I am tempted to even *wager* that if the split occurs crosspostings will become a problem. There are those of us interested in calculators and those interested in palmtops. I believe the comp.sys.palmtops/comp.sys.calculators split will solve the objections to HP-48 traffic while pleasing Portfolio, BOSS, Wizard, Poquet, etc., fans. > > Jeff E Mandel MD MS > Asst. Professor of Anesthesiology > Tulane University School of Medicine > New Orleans, LA > mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu ------ Tom Conte Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing conte@uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois Fast cars, fast women, fast computers
taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) (05/16/91)
I hope you don't mind -- I'm going to re-arrange your points for discussion's sake. In article <7498@rex.cs.tulane.edu>, mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) writes: |>2) I believe that it will be impossible to understand what other machines, |>architectures, or broad classes of machines need to have new groups until we |>have dealt with the volume of HP48 traffic. No one can contest the fact that |>the major volume of postings to this group over the last year have been HP48; |>that a significant portion of the readership of this group have as their main |>interest HP48 issues, and that anyone who is not interested in the HP48 has a |>hard time in this group. OK, so what you're saying is that of the handhelds in comp.sys.handhelds, the HP48 owners/users/readers are the majority, at least in terms of posting. Is that right? |> |>1) Despite the strongly held views of some that there is a common interest |>amongst all HP calculator users, there has not been a groundswell of |>HP28, 41, |>etc. users saying that they need to be in with the HP48 users. Having |>previously attempted to get support for .hp2848, and having failed, I |>believe |>that this is not the option most likely to satisfy the majority. Nor have we seen evidence that the HP28, 41, etc. "need to be" removed from discussions on the HP48. On that, we have to take your word, mostly, since when you tried "to get support for .hp2848" you solicited responses by private mail and discouraged public responses. YOU made the decision that there was no support, apparently based on this private correspondance. There was little or no discussion in the public view. This, I believe, is improper procedure in creating a newsgroup. |>3) I know that the HP95 is a new hot interest, and we may need a group for it |>some day, but to do so now is premature. There is not another machine whose |>volume of traffic has even come close to the level where a news group of its |>own is warranted. |> I would agree if you stipulate that neither has the HP48 acheived the volume of traffic where it needs its own group. But since you don't seem to yeild that point, then perhaps you can specify when a particular calculator needs to be shunted into a separate group and when it should be brought back. (Because when the HP41 and the HP28 were the hot calculators, they caused quite a bit of traffic. But now they seem to meet your metric for staying within c.s.h. When does the HP48 get absorbed back?) |>I am sorry that the majority of you are having to read so many rehashings of |>harrangues from the last discussion, but unfortunately there are those |>who have |>deemed it necessary. Aside from the HP IR printer issue (which |>probably can be |>resolved by application of common sense), are there any compelling |>reasons why |>an HP48-only group will cause problems now? I'm sorry that people have to put up with this again too. I wasn't the one who messed up the creation guidelines. But since it's back in the discussion stage, I think it's important to (again) push for the idea to fail. And if it can't fail, then at least it should be something more elegant than pushing the HP48 into a separate group. I wholeheartedly support a moderated source group for HP48 code. I half-heartedly support a group for HP calculators as a class. I sincerely question the wisdom of a group for HP48's only. -- >>>==>PStJTT Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD "Nerd" is so demeaning, I prefer "fashion-impared."
conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) (05/18/91)
[ Discussion about why the split of comp.sys.handhelds into comp.sys.palmtops comp.sys.calculators makes sense is raging on in comp.sys.handhelds ] Guys, you're doing this all to comp.sys.handhelds. You have to include news.groups in the Newsgroups: list for anyone with any authority to see it. Unless we make ourselves visible to the net.others we'll be stuck with the comp.sys.handhelds.hp48 vote and it will get voted down. We have to let others know that there's a discussion going on here! ------ Tom Conte Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing conte@uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois Fast cars, fast women, fast computers
conrad@popvax.uucp (M20400@c.nobili) (05/19/91)
In article <1991May15.170626.9508@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) writes: >Let me amend (2). Someone (sorry for the lack of acknowledgement) suggested: > >comp.sys.palmtops >comp.sys.calculators > >I support this. How many others do? Definitely. Me too. (Actually, I may be the Someone from above -- I had seen a suggestion for comp.sys.handhelds.calcs and comp.sys.handhelds.palmtops from (Robert L. Dahlen - U. of Denver USA=) and liked it but thought that it made much more sense to drop the handhelds portion from each....) >There are those of us interested in calculators and those interested in >palmtops. I believe the comp.sys.palmtops/comp.sys.calculators split will >solve the objections to HP-48 traffic while pleasing Portfolio, BOSS, Wizard, >Poquet, etc., fans. Yes. Exactly what I said before. I also agree with others that a moderated, automatically-archived sources-and-binaries group would be very nice for HP48SX stuff. I hate having to worry whether archives are up to date and whether I should save the posted code myself.... Note that I have several HP calculators, not all of them 48SXs. I am interested however in _all_ HP calculator information. (I would love to have one of the old classics someday, like a 34....) I am also very much interested in stuff about _other_ brand calculators. (Although, unless things change drastically, I would probably not _buy_ one...! ;-) ) I can't imagine my being interested in palmtops at all in the forseeable future. (Although I _can_ imagine others be- ing so interested now....) >------ >Tom Conte Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing > conte@uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois > Fast cars, fast women, fast computers +---- 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 ----+