Wlodek Mier-Jedrzejowicz (mier@spva.physics.imperial.ac.uk) (05/23/91)
Concerning the great comp.sys.handhelds HP48 split debate: >>If it ain't broke, don't fix it! >It is broken. Let's fix it. What is broken? I summarized the debate for myself; now I want to share that summary. For those folks who do not want to read all 240 lines - I suggest that a comp.sources.rpl group be set up to take all the heavy HP48 stuff, and some more besides, off csh (comp.sys.handhelds). The rest of csh could then carry on as before. Discussion on splitting off the palmtops can be left till later. INTRODUCTION At first the problem was that some people thought HP48 postings were overwhelming everything else in csh. It was suggested that one or more separate news groups should be set up for the HP48. The debate developed and now there are 3 questions. 1. Should HP48 users split from the rest of comp.sys.handhelds? 2. If so, what groups should be created? 3. Should there be a further split to allow for "palmtops"? The 3 questions are inter-related, but trying to answer 1 and 2 at the same time is confusing, and question 3 is adding to the confusion. I try to deal with each separately. 1. The original reason for suggesting a split between the HP48 and the rest of csh was that discussion on this one handheld was thought to be swamping all other topics. Some sort of split was deemed necessary. ADVANTAGES OF A SPLIT. Non-HP48 users can discuss their handhelds without being swamped by HP48 stuff. HP48-only users can discuss their handheld alone. New non-HP48 readers of csh will not be frightened off by the large number of HP48 postings. DISADVANTAGES OF A SPLIT. People interested in the HP48 and others will have to read two groups; this will lead to cross-postings between the groups, so the total volume of postings will increase. Those who do not read csh directly but take a "feed" will have to change their feed, and maybe take two feeds. Any change is a nuisance. DISCUSSION - MY OPINIONS Nothing would be broken and there would be no need for a split: A/ if every HP48 message included "HP48" in the subject, so people could reject or select the messages they want. B/ if those csh readers who pay for their connections could select messages at the remote end, so they would receive and pay for only those messages they want. Unfortunately, A is unlikely to happen because of human nature, and B is usually impossible. For a lot of people this is no problem - they skip articles they are not interested in, and they pay little or nothing for csh access - for them nothing is broken. The split is wanted by those for whom something _is_ broken; I think it would be very instructive to vote on just the question "Do you want a split?". This might have to be informal, as the net guidelines deal with specific split suggestions. Still, it would separate this question from the one which was actually posed; that was more in the nature of "Are you willing to tolerate the particular split suggested?" 2. If a majority do want to split off HP48 topics, how should csh split? The following suggestions have been made: COMP.SYS.HP48 and "the rest" This has the advantage of simplicity - all HP48 stuff is split off into an easily identified separate group. There are disadvantages: Some HP48 users would still want to read HP28 items, since most of those apply to the HP48 too. Some HP28 users would want to read HP48 material, as some of it applies to the HP28 too. There would be cross-postings between the HP48 and the HP28. It would not be clear that this is the group for any successor to the HP28/HP48 family of handhelds. NOTE: It has been urged that there be more than one hp48 group - a general discussion group, and perhaps one or more of a moderated group, a "sources" group and a "binary" group. I consider this to be the same as splitting off a comp.sys.hp48 group - the hp48 material is moved off csh so the other users no longer feel overwhelmed. Jeff Mandel, who organized the original vote, points out that a comp.sources.hp48 group seems acceptable to all. This would take some pressure off csh - maybe even to the extent that no other split would be needed. The original vote on splitting was deemed invalid because two groups were dealt with in one vote. This time, if a separate vote is taken on each group then maybe it would be enough to vote for just the "sources" group, especially if we were allowed by the net.gods to include binaries in this group. COMP.SYS.HANDHELDS.HP2848 and "the rest" This would cover the HP48 and the HP28, which have many common features. People interested in both, but not in anything else, would need to subscribe only to this group. It would cut down on cross- postings between the HP48 group and "the rest" where HP28 users would otherwise be. Disadvantages: Some HP28 users object to having to read through a lot of HP48 stuff that is not relevant to them. Some HP48 users want to preserve the purity of an HP48 only group. COMP.SYS.HANDHELDS.RPL and "the rest" This would cover the HP48 and the HP28, like the above, but also any future handheld that uses the same RPL language. It could even be called COMP.SYS.RPL and be used for discussions of RPL on other platforms, for example on PCs, Macs, or Amigas if RPL is ever carried over to those. Disadvantages: As above, some HP28 and HP48 users object to having to read through stuff that is not relevant to them. "RPL" is somewhat obscure - not all HP48 and HP28 owners realize at first that this is the name of their programming language. Some HP48 and HP28 users are interested in hardware and machine code programming, not just RPL, so they do not like the name RPL. NOTE: Instead of a comp.sources.hp48 group we could try for a comp.sources.rpl group. Ideally this should carry rpl language programs for the HP28, the HP48, and further RPL calculators, and binary sources for use with all RPL machines. It should include entry point lists and internals. It should even include sources and binaries for PC, Mac and Amiga programs used for program development on RPL machines. For example STAR, MLDL and CHIP48 should be put here. The obscurity of the name "rpl" would be less of a problem, since complete newcomers would not need to come here at first; later they would be directed here by the regular FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) posting. If a group like this were acceptable to the net.gods, then the rest of the HP48 stuff could probably be left on csh! COMP.SYS.HANDHELDS.SATURN and "the rest" This would cover all HP handhelds that use the Saturn CPU. Since all current HP handhelds except the HP95LX use this CPU, it would be equivalent to cutting nearly all HP users off from the rest of csh. The suggestion can therefore be treated as equivalent to: COMP.SYS.HANDHELDS.HP and "the rest" This would cut off all HP users from users of all other handhelds. Some would think this a good idea, but HP48 users and other HP users alike attacked it as it does not deal with the fundamental requirement of splitting off the high volume of HP48 material from the rest. COMP.SYS.HP.HANDHELDS and "the rest" This would be like the above, except that it would move HP handhelds completely away from other handhelds users. Since use of HP handhelds has more in common with use of other handhelds than with use of HP workstations (for example) this has not been greeted with enthusiasm. "THE REST" A lot of discussion has concerned what to do with the rest of csh (or all of csh if there is no split), apart from the HP48 split. Some suggestions have been made that other makes (Casio, TI, Sharp) could be split off, and the remaining group should be called comp.sys.handhelds.misc. Not very much support for this has been expressed - the main wish was to remove the HP48 users as only these threaten to overwhelm csh. Jeff Mandel recently suggested a split along the lines of programmers/ organizers/ connectivity. This has not been discussed much yet, but might generate masses of cross-postings, with most users subscribing to more than one of these groups. DISCUSSION - MY OPINIONS As I wrote above, I would like to see a vote on the principle of a split first. If a split is voted for, let it deal with the fundamental problem - split the HP48 from the rest. HP48 users might like to take the HP28 with them, in an HP2848 or RPL group, but Jeff Mandel reports that some HP28 users object. How many object? How many HP48 users, on the contrary, want to take the HP28 with them? My personal preference is for a comp.sources.rpl group which would take the heaviest and largest postings off csh, while allowing general chat on the hp48 and other hp handhelds to remain on csh. Personally, I like csh as it is - it allows users of many different products to exchange information and opinions. Whatever is decided, let's deal with the HP48 split or non-split first! As for splitting the rest of csh further and/or renaming it - what most needs discussing is whether to split off the palmtops - see below. 3. Should there be additional splits to allow for the HP95LX and other "palmtops"? A split along the lines of "palmtops", "organizers", "calculators", and so on, would not of itself solve the perceived problem of HP48 postings overwhelming all else, so I believe the HP48 split can safely be dealt with first. The HP95LX is seen as the next candidate for swamping csh. It seems too early to decide whether it should be split off with the Portfolio and Poquet or on its own - let's deal with the HP48 now and wait till more 95s show up, and maybe till more "palmtop" models are announced. Meanwhile there is room for general discussion around the topic, for example group names: COMP.SYS.PALMTOPS This would cover handheld versions of larger computers. At present only palmtop PCs are available, but this may need to split into comp.sys.palmtops.pc, and comp.sys.palmtops.mac or others later. "Palmtops" is a name some of us dislike, but it has been forced on us by the computer press, and is well understood by most computer users, so we may as well accept it. COMP.SYS.ORGANIZERS AND COMP.SYS.CALCULATORS Some people suggest that, once comp.sys.palmtops has been split off, the rest of csh should split further into organizers and calculators. This looks "logical" but presents problems. For example, where would handheld computers such as Casio's BASIC handhelds or the HP-71B go? They would need yet another group. Would the Psion organizers go in this same group, since they are handheld computers, or in the organizer group as their name suggests? There would be a lot of overlap - the HP95LX and Portfolio are both used as organizers and calculators as well as "palmtop PCs". The HP19B, Casio BOSSes and Sharp Wizards are calculators and organizers. The HP-41CX is a calculator, an organizer, and a handheld computer. The TI-74 is a calculator and a handheld computer. I think there would be too much confusion and too little benefit. Let's just worry about splitting off the HP48 and the Palmtops for now. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" RENAMING COMP.SYS.HANDHELDS Some people are happy to leave csh alone except for perhaps splitting off the HP48 and/or palmtops, but want to rename csh. I would like to see if there are any really powerful arguments for this. As an example comp.sys.handhelds.misc states the obvious - that it covers everything except topics covered elsewhere. Unless there is a compelling reason for changing the name let's leave the name alone - once again "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" CONCLUSIONS I would suggest, first of all, a vote on whether a majority want some split between the HP48 and the rest of csh. Maybe the result of the vote held earlier has already told us a majority are in favour (whether for their own benefit, or out of altruism on behalf of those users seen to need the split). Then there would be a vote on several possible groups. As we know, each would have to be voted on separately, to fulfil the requirements of news group creation rules. I WOULD URGE THAT COMP.SOURCES.RPL BE OFFERED AS ONE CHOICE. It should carry rpl sources and also other material for development of programs on rpl machines. It would allow for any successor to the HP48. It should be archived so users could pick things up from it later. I believe that such a group would alone be enough to remove the excess hp48 burden from csh. Following this vote I would suggest that those so inclined carry on discussing the possible need for a palmtops split. I hope that this would be at a sufficiently low level not to annoy other csh users. Wlodek Mier-Jedrzejowicz, Space & Atmospheric Physics, Imperial College, London, England. Chairman of HPCC, the British club for users of HP handhelds. -- Jeremy |-) Smith smithj@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
streeter@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Kenneth B Streeter) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May23.072358.25227@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> Wlodek Mier-Jedrzejowicz (mier@spva.physics.imperial.ac.uk) writes: >DISCUSSION - MY OPINIONS >My personal preference is for a comp.sources.rpl group which would >take the heaviest and largest postings off csh, while allowing general >chat on the hp48 and other hp handhelds to remain on csh. Personally, >I like csh as it is - it allows users of many different products to >exchange information and opinions. The idea of splitting off just "source" postings from comp.sys.handhelds doesn't do much to alleviate the problem that you address, namely that the HP48 traffic comprises 95+% of the traffic in c.s.h, making other traffic very difficult to follow. The reason for this is that although the source postings comprise a large percentage of the volume, they represent only a small number of the articles posted to c.s.h. The problem is that since a "sources" group would be moderated (which has loads of advantages, like tested programs, and a consistent posting format, and easy automated archival, etc), creation of the sources group does not take ANY of the "discussion" away from c.s.h, only the source postings. -- Kenneth B. Streeter | ARPA: streeter@im.lcs.mit.edu MIT LCS, Room NE43-350 | UUCP: ...!uunet!im.lcs.mit.edu!streeter 545 Technology Square | (617) 253-2614 (work) Cambridge, MA 02139 | (617) 225-2249 (home)