Steve Stevenson-Moderator (fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu) (02/15/88)
There have been no "Nays" as yet to the name change. The original motion was to wait until the 24th for final comments. That date stands. In the mean time, I'll post the comments - uneditted except for mailer lines - periodically. The only issue seems to be some folks want "comp.arch.parallel. See Ralph Johnson's message (2/11/88) and my comments. Steve ================== Comments throught 2/15/88 ===================== From heh%ulysses@att.arpa Fri Feb 12 14:47:34 1988 Summary: "NO" to restricting the subject matter of this news group In article <963@hubcap.UUCP>, Steve Stevenson (fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu) writes: > From johnson@p.cs.uiuc.edu Thu Feb 11 10:46:09 1988 > > While comp.parallel is a better name than comp.hypercube, the best > name is comp.arch.parallel. Some might say that parallel programming > is a software topic, not an architecture topic. I wish that were > true, but it isn't. > > Ralph Johnson > > [ Comment. I thought of that, but I think the same argument as > we have against "comp.hypercube" apply here. For example, > theoreticians or software engineers might say "Oh, that's > machine implementation only." Our readership spans a wide > range of interests. > > Comments? > ] . . . Personally, I wouldn't like to see this news group restricted to software topics or to architecture topics (nor do I think it should). I don't see how we can talk about operating systems or restructurers without including information about architectures. In fact, in the field of parallel processing, this point extends to much software at the application level as well. I vote to change the name to comp.parallel and to include software and architecture discussions. ------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Gary Barton <gatech!harvard!ll-xn!harvard!ssd.harris.com!garyb> Here's my YES vote for comp.parallel. It is certainly more appropriate than comp.hypercube. However, I also think that comp.arch.parallel is even more appropriate. I would expect to see postings dealing with all aspects of parallel architectures, including but not limited to : Memory hierarchies Array processors and other SIMD machines MIMD processor architectures Massively parallel architectures Processor interconnection schemes Software considerations for parallel platforms Data flow computers and languages Thanx. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | Gary Barton | ..from the home of the HCX.. | | Software Development | Harris Computer Systems Division | +-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------+ | garyb@ssd.harris.com | 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. | | {uunet,cbosgd,mit-eddie}!hcx1!garyb | Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33309 | | {mtune,gatech}!codas!novavax!hcx1!garyb | (305) 974-1700 | ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ===================== Comments to 2/12/88 =========================== Newsgroups: comp.hypercube From: fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu (Steve Stevenson) Subject: Comments about change of name Approved: hypercube@hubcap.clemson.edu From johnson@p.cs.uiuc.edu Thu Feb 11 10:46:09 1988 While comp.parallel is a better name than comp.hypercube, the best name is comp.arch.parallel. Some might say that parallel programming is a software topic, not an architecture topic. I wish that were true, but it isn't. Ralph Johnson [ Comment. I thought of that, but I think the same argument as we have against "comp.hypercube" apply here. For example, theoreticians or software engineers might say "Oh, that's machine implementation only." Our readership spans a wide range of interests. Comments? ] ------------------------------------------------------ From: Ehud Shapiro <udi%WISDOM.BITNET@CNUCE-VM.ARPA> Subject: hypercube ==> parallel I second the motion. A point to note: there is a newsgroup called parsym, for parallel symbolic computation. I haven't seen much of it lately, but perhaps it should be united with comp.parallel as well. Ehud Shapiro [ Comment. Good suggestion. I'll check it out when we get at bit further on. ]