wbpesch@ihuxp.UUCP (Walt Pesch) (02/22/84)
I would like to formally propose the creation of "net.cs". It charter
would include the discussion of topics in areas of Computer Science.
The differance between this new group and current ones is that the
purpose of this group would be to discourse upon the theroreticals
and the interesting tricks that make our discipline sometimes so
mysterious, not hardware or languages or specific machines or ai.
The need for this group came apparent when I was attempting to gather
information in regards to the RISC theory of Computers, but could find
no significantly appropiate group. Especially with the large number
of Universities and Program Shops on this net, there are signifcant
questions, both in the abstract and in the application, that have no
place to be asked or to be answered. Examples: Number theory,
database design theory, generic data structures, and recent
theoretical developments (for example the RISC theory). And also the
interesting things that some never will know about: Hamming Codes,
Robotics, and Queueing Theory. These are just examples off the top of
my head of things that some people never contact but are interesting.
I think that in a net that has wobegon, a serious forum that could
prove to be very interesting deserves atleast a chance. Thanks for
the time.
Walt Pesch
AT&T Technologies
ihnp4!ihuxp!wbpeschalb@alice.UUCP (02/23/84)
Why don't people read the group list? This is the second time in less than a month that someone has proposed net.cs -- WE ALREADY HAVE net.cse FOR THE SAME PURPOSE AND IT'S PRACTICALLY UNUSED!!!
wbpesch@ihuxp.UUCP (Walt Pesch) (02/23/84)
Au Contraire! The proposed group is for the discussion of the
theoreticals of Computer Science. To my understanding, net.cse (a
group with as large of a following as net.rec.wood has) is for the
discussion of "Computer Science Education", in other words the
discussion of teaching Computer Science. Discussions of theoreticals
does not fall into here. So there's one dissenter, who's next?
I would also like to mention that people feel that we should be
restructuring the net into a tree structure. How easily would the
several theoretical Computer Science groups (lang, arch, ai off the
top of my head) fall under net.cs, while also using net.cs for
discussions not included in the subgroups.
Once again, thanks for your time.
Walt Pesch
AT&T Technologies
ihnp4!ihuxp!wbpeschchuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/24/84)
It would seem to me that at first reading, Walt has a good idea. We DO need
a place where a centralized discussion of computer science because the
discussion of RISC (also 16Kvs.68K and others) got out of hand and spread
all over everywhere. However, if you look at your active file, you will see
a large number of technical subjects, most of them with little usage, and
with almost NO coordination about overlap. These are the topics I found
in my active that I thought might be relevant.
net.ai net.analog net.arch net.cog-eng net.crypt net.cse net.dcom net.emacs
net.eunice net.graphics net.info-terms net.lan net.lsi net.micro.432
net.micro.16k net.micro.68k net.periphs net.research net.std net.text
net.usoft net.vvs net.works net.works.apollo
Now, my immediate response to net.cs would normally be 'Why not use
net.research, since that is what it's supposed to be used for and it is
usually empty'. Looking at it, I think I see a better way (Uh, Oh, Martha,
he's at it again!!!). Hence, a minor suggestion (Oh, no, this is serious!
Don't look, Martha!)
Why don't we create a general computer oriented topic, and then move
existing related topics into it, either as sub-topics where applicable or
merged completely if there isn't enough volume. From the list above, I
would make the following first cut (suggestions welcome)
net.analog net.arch net.cse net.eunice net.lsi net.research net.std net.vvs
net.cs
.ai
.cog-eng
.crypt
.dcom
.graphics
.info-terms
.lan
.periphs
.text
.usoft
.works
.works.apollo (assuming they gateway arpanet stuff, otherwise why?)
net.emacs, net.eunice and the micro topics probably shouldn't move into
this subgrouping. This means that the topics net.analog, net.arch, net.cse,
net.lsi, net.research, net.std, and net.vvs would all be merged and could
use net.cs for their discussions. These topics are all low enough volume
that they could share a single topic, and in many cases the same discussion
moves into some of these groups simultaneously.
I realize that this is a significant change to the structure of the net,
but I don't think that the way things are now is working efficiently or
well. This new grouping should give us a better way of putting things
together so that we we can try to reduce the trashing that is going on
throughout the system right now.
As always, I am more than welcome to hear comments and suggestions from the
peanut gallery. This is not a perfect suggestion, just a starting place,
and I'm sure that if we all get together and cooperate, we can improve it
and make it and the net something much better.
As always,
chuq
--
From the house at Pooh Corner: Chuq 'Nuke Wobegon' Von Rospach
{fortune,menlo70}!nsc!chuqui Have you hugged your Pooh today?
Oh, and pinch me, too?israel@umcp-cs.UUCP (02/24/84)
From: alb@alice.UUCP
Why don't people read the group list? This is the second time
in less than a month that someone has proposed net.cs -- WE
ALREADY HAVE net.cse FOR THE SAME PURPOSE AND IT'S PRACTICALLY
UNUSED!!!
According to the active news group list (which you yourself maintain),
net.cse is defined as:
net.cse Computer science education.
Which is NOT the same as the current proposal! net.cse is intended to
discuss educational techniques in computer science (at least that is
how I and probably many others read the above description). The
proposal for net.cs is to discuss issues in computer science, not
computer science education. Now, net.research might be the place for
it, (though I'm not sure; the name and description are vague enough
that it doesn't really get used for anything), but that depends on what
things are intended to be discussed in net.cs.
I'm not one of those who are against the creation of new newsgroups,
but I do think that some need should be shown before a new group gets
created. I haven't really seen a need for net.cs (since many of the
things that would be discussed in it have other places to go, i.e.
net.ai, net.lang[.*], net.micro[.*], net.cog-eng, and the suggested
discussion topic of RISC computers could even have gone in net.arch,
which is listed as discussing computer architectures).
If you really feel that there are things to discuss in the area of CS
that don't have a place, then why don't you start a discussion in
net.research and if there does seem to be a demand, then net.cs can be
created later. But as it stands now, I cast a nay vote against net.cs
until a need is shown.
--
(If I had a cute saying, you'd probably be reading it rather than this
garbage which says that if I had a cute saying, ... )
Bruce Israel
University of Maryland, Computer Science
{rlgvax,seismo}!umcp-cs!israel (Usenet) israel.umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay (Arpanet)thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) (02/27/84)
1. The original article which prompted the proposal of this newsgroup could have easily gone into net.arch (discussion of computer architectures). 2. There is already a group net.research which seems to me to fill the need just fine. =Spencer
grunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP (03/01/84)
#R:ihuxp:-64400:uiuccsb:3700006:000:571 uiuccsb!grunwald Feb 29 12:16:00 1984 I dunno -- I think that net.cs would be a good addition, particularly if we allow it to fragment into net.cs.os, net.cs.tcomp, net.cs.swe, etc. Most of the mail on this net has to do with how to make better quiche or who should be elected president. I assume that most people do some outside work. It would be rather nice to converse with other schools about research topics. For example, assume you're reading some paper/monograph/whatever which has a few choice problems in it which you don't understand. Finding someone on the net to help would be very useful.
tower@inmet.UUCP (03/01/84)
#R:ihuxp:-64400:inmet:7000045:000:890 inmet!tower Feb 28 23:22:00 1984 Re: need for a net.cs Walt: Appears you need to find out how to find your way around USENET news groups. Descriptions are from alice!alb regular list of newsgroups. RISC has been discussed in: net.arch Computer architecture. Number theory has been discussed in: net.math Mathematical discussions and puzzles database design theory has been discussed in: net.arch Computer architecture. generic data structures has been discussed in: net.lang Different Computer Languages. Hamming Codes has been discussed in: net.dcom Data Communication Hardware and Software Robotics has been discussed in: net.ai Artifical Intellligence Queuing Theory has been discussed in: net.math Mathematical discussions and puzzles Now some of those might be a bit obscure, but I don't think a general catch-all net.cs is the right answer. -len tower harpo!inmet!tower Cambridge, MA
paulv@mcvax.UUCP (Paul Vitanyi) (03/02/84)
+++++++ It is surprising that a newsgroup like the proposed net.cs for Theory of Computer Science does not exist. All kinds of discussions rage in other newsgroups like net.ai which by rights belong on net.cs . Support Walt Pech's Proposal! Paul Vitanyi
wbpesch@ihuxp.UUCP (Walt Pesch) (03/05/84)
It's time for the old foot in the mouth routine: a recent posting (inmet!tower) listed a few of the CS discussions that have occured in the path, and where they occured. From the tone of his article, I think that he meant the listing as evidence against the creation. Let us look at the examples he poses: >>> RISC has been discussed in: >>> net.arch Computer architecture. The discussion (and I have read old net.arch) dealt in the majority with the theory of RISC, not the RISC I chip, which would properly belong there. There was mostly posting on references to journals. But I will agree that this is appropiate for atleast a subset of the discussion. >>> Number theory has been discussed in: >>> net.math Mathematical discussions and puzzles But what about the Comp Sci applications... numerical analyses. Are we to cross-reference between net.math and net.arch if we are to discuss new hardware for on-board floating point error and the calculus behind such? >>> database design theory has been discussed in: >>> net.arch Computer architecture. Boy, this is a great one. I suppose you want to discuss the proper ways of mixing concrete in net.arch too. >>> generic data structures has been discussed in: >>> net.lang Different Computer Languages. See above. What if I want to discuss tree structures (something all netnews administrators should want to). Do I have to go to net.lang.ada? >>> Hamming Codes has been discussed in: >>> net.dcom Data Communication Hardware and Software Good match here, but how many people read this group? By the way, I could make a good arguement as to putting this in the all-encompassing net.arch, for architectures entail Hamming Codes in memory (or atleast parity bits.) >>> Robotics has been discussed in: >>> net.ai Artifical Intellligence From the application side? I really feel it is a misnomer to put AI and robotics under the same roof. (Though they may be on the same block in some cases.) >>> Queuing Theory has been discussed in: >>> net.math Mathematical discussions and puzzles Do they really want me to come in their and discuss the Mean Time to Failure of various computers systems and their integral parts? ------------- Well, where does this take us and what does this show. I see that we have here a variety of topics (pardon me but "Orphanned Topics") that do not comfortably fit in a given newsgroup, for they can also be considered either only a related topic or else a superset of the stated purpose of the newsgroup or else a gross misuse of the newsgroup. (Database theory in net.arch? PAH!) Once again, the critics give more evidence. The list above is nt comprehensive of what can be discussed in a generic computer science newsgroup. But it is representative. I still do feel that it also shows the necessity. A newsgroup today may save nine. (A generic newsgroup may stop the creation of many small limited and quickly-dying discussions.) Once again, thanks for your time. Walt Pesch AT&T Technologies ihnp4!ihuxp!wbpesch
paulv@mcvax.UUCP (Paul Vitanyi) (03/07/84)
The proposal for net.cs is a good one. Rather than critique on the present proposal (net.cs as a newsgroup for the more theoretical side of Computer Science) one would expect such a newsgroup to be present. The negative reactions on the network reflect more the readership thereof. A group like net.cs might attract a new group of readers, or readers who gave up earlier because they did not like the fare. Paul Vitanyi
bet@ecsvax.UUCP (03/08/84)
A large proportion of all technical traffic on the net is appropriate to
net.cs, which isn't surprising considering how many net nodes are CS
departments of universities. One could say that net.cs exists, fragmented
in the myriad computer-related groups existing or waiting to be created.
For a particular computer-science need, create an appropriate group if
you like, but net.cs, if it were to be created, would be appropriate for
most theoretical articles in current computer-related groups. If you must
have it, call it net.misc.cs -- group for miscellany not fitting existing
technical groups.
Bennett Todd
...{decvax,ihnp4,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bet