nsb+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nathaniel Borenstein) (03/06/89)
This is a NEW call for votes on the creation of a newsgroup for discussing the Andrew system. If you voted on the previous vote, you should vote AGAIN for this new vote. Remember, if we don't get enough "yes" votes, we don't get a newsgroup. There was a lot of debate (on news.groups) about what the newsgroup should be called. The four main contenders were "comp.andrew", "comp.sys.andrew", "comp.env.andrew", and "comp.software.andrew". (The latter two both involve creating a new intermediate newsgroup.) It seems to me that there is the least opposition to "comp.sys.andrew" so in the interest of harmony, I am proposing that this be the group's name. (Although "comp.sys" is mostly hardware now, there's not really any reason it can't have software systems as well.) NOTE: The new comp.sys.andrew newsgroup WILL be gatewayed with the info-andrew mailing list. To vote YES on creating comp.sys.andrew, send mail to nsb+yes@andrew.cmu.edu. To vote NO on creating comp.sys.andrew, send mail to nsb+no@andrew.cmu.edu. People reading this from the info-andrew mailing list with an Andrew Message System user interface will be automatically asked whether or not they want to send a "yes" vote; if you prefer to send a no vote, you may do so by hand. For those of you who haven't been following the discussion, a brief description of the Andrew system follows. For more details, lets wait for the newsgroup's creation. ________________________________________________________________ Andrew is a joint venture of IBM and CMU to develop the integrated university software environment of the future. It is primarily oriented to UNIX workstations, although parts run on machines as simple as PC's, Macintoshes, and VMS Vaxes. There are three main parts to Andrew: 1. The Andrew File System is a large-scale distributed file system. Think of it as NFS scaled WAY up. It is beginning to be used as what we hope will eventually be a single nationwide file system for computer science research. From my machine at home, for example, I can now use "ls" to see files at MIT, University of Michigan, and a few other sites. 2. The Andrew Toolkit is a very high lvel user interface toolkit for X11 and other window systems. It was recently selected as a "research technology" by the Open Software Foundation. 3. The Andrew Message System permits the exchange (even via SMTP through clunky gateways like the ones to BITNET) of multimedia mail and bulletin board messages, including raster images, equations, tables, spreadsheets, hierarchical drawings, animations, and even pianos that actually make sounds. The Toolkit and Message System have been generously made non-proprietary by IBM, and are included on the X11R3 tape from MIT. (You can find it under contrib/toolkits/andrew, and it is known to run on IBM RT's, Suns, and MicroVaxes as distributed on the tape. Since the R3 release, patches have been made to allow it to run on several other vendors' hardware, notably HP's.) The X11R3 release version of Andrew also includes a multimedia text editor, a configurable graphical system monitoring program, a very nice help program, a terminal interface (an alternative to xterm), and several other applications. All three parts of Andrew are being considered in the product plans of several major vendors. ________________________________ Nathaniel Borenstein Manager, Andrew Applications Development
rpd@cs.cmu.edu (Richard Draves) (03/07/89)
I don't think the voting will be fair. Nathaniel cross-posted this to a widely-read Andrew bboard (used for general announcements), giving readers the option of automatically sending a yes vote. However, there wasn't a no vote alternative. (The alternative was not sending a vote at all.) Just because sending a no vote is much more painful for the hundreds/thousands of readers of the Andrew bboard, the voting results will be tremendously biased. I think Nathaniel should discard all votes from the andrew.cmu.edu mail domain. Rich
nsb+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nathaniel Borenstein) (03/07/89)
> *Excerpts from mail: 6-Mar-89 Re: comp.sys.andrew: NEW ca.. Richard* > *Draves@cs.cmu.ed (541)* > I don't think the voting will be fair. Nathaniel cross-posted this to a > widely-read Andrew bboard (used for general announcements), giving readers the > option of automatically sending a yes vote. However, there wasn't a no vote > alternative. (The alternative was not sending a vote at all.) Just because > sending a no vote is much more painful for the hundreds/thousands of readers of > the Andrew bboard, the voting results will be tremendously biased. > I think Nathaniel should discard all votes from the andrew.cmu.edu mail domain. Sigh... Apparently nothing I can do is non-controversial. OK, when I publish the vote, I will make it clear how many come from which domain. Meanwhile, I am cross-posting this to all the same bboards, giving everyone the option of an automatic "no" vote just as easily as the "yes" vote. I do, incidentally, have to take exception to the notion that this would have been "tremendously biased." I really didn't intend to bias the results, merely to make it easy for people. The fact is, it is exceedingly unlikely that ANY Andrew users are going to vote "no" on this anyway -- not a single one did last time. I find it hard to imagine why any regular Andrew user would vote against having a newsgroup for discussions about Andrew. But to be fair, I am now giving them the same automatic option that they had for the "yes" vote -- this message carries with it an equally easy way to place a "no" vote, and I will make it clear how many votes came from andrew.cmu.edu when I post the vote summary. The reason, by the way, that I posted it on the announcement bboard was that some of our local users had complained that not everyone here was getting a chance to vote, because they don't happen to read things like comp.windows.x, news.groups, or info-andrew. So I cross-posted it on a local bulletin board; I really didn't think of myself as stuffing any ballot boxes, and I'll make it clear where all the votes come from.
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (03/07/89)
In article <0Y4iHny00Uk40pGdsZ@andrew.cmu.edu> nsb+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nathaniel Borenstein) writes: >I find it hard to imagine why any regular Andrew user would vote against >having a newsgroup for discussions about Andrew. Oh, so you were going to decide FOR them? This has been gone over time and time again, and recently, too. There are MANY reasons why even someone interested in the topic could vote against a newsgroup for it. Maybe they LIKE having a mailing list instead of a newsgroup. To be fair, you have to be fair. You can't make it easier to vote the way YOU think they should or will than the other way. --Greg
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (03/17/89)
nsb+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nathaniel Borenstein) said:
-
-The reason, by the way, that I posted it on the announcement bboard was that
-some of our local users had complained that not everyone here was getting a
-chance to vote, because they don't happen to read things like comp.windows.x,
-news.groups, or info-andrew. So I cross-posted it on a local bulletin board; I
-really didn't think of myself as stuffing any ballot boxes, and I'll make it
-clear where all the votes come from.
Anyone who doesn't read news.groups deserves what they get.
And those people who can and don't read things like comp.windows.x or
info-andrew have no need to vote on comp.sys.andrew. They obviously don't
care about it, so why bother them with it?
--
David Bedno (The Cat in the Hat), Reachable at: davidbe@sco.COM -OR-
.!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc}!sco!davidbe -OR- At home: 408-425-5266
At work: 408-425-7222 x5123 (I'm probably here...)
Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO. Not by a long shot.
"Well what happened to your old engineers?"
"We shot them because they were STUPID."