mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) (05/20/91)
1) Unless I seriously misunderstand David Lawrence (and he is invited to correct me), the idea of comp.sys.handhelds, comp.sys.palmtops will not be acceptable. If we stick with names under comp.sys.handhelds, comp.sys.handhelds.handhelds & comp.sys.handhelds.palmtops doesn't quite make it. I know some of you think that whatever makes sense to you as a reworking of the namespace must obviously be a candidate solution, but I found out otherwise. 2) Every proposal I have tried (comp.sys.handhelds.hp, comp.sys.handhelds.hp48, comp.sys.handhelds.hp2848, to name a few) has had a number of zealots who hate it. Most of these people seem to take the attitude that "we don't really need a split, but...". Well, there are a lot of people who feel we need a split, and we aren't going to be convinced that a group that is defacto HP48 programmers is appropriately named comp.sys.handhelds just because a few people can't stand the idea of reading two newsgroups because the split is not exactly along the lines they desire. 3) There are several individuals (and I'm sure you know who you are) whose opinions are well known. I would appreciate it if some other people would make their opinions known. Not that I don't love hearing from all of you... Jeff E Mandel MD MS Asst. Professor of Anesthesiology Tulane University School of Medicine New Orleans, LA mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu
taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) (05/20/91)
In article <7567@rex.cs.tulane.edu>, mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) writes: |>1) Unless I seriously misunderstand David Lawrence (and he is invited |>to |>correct me), the idea of comp.sys.handhelds, comp.sys.palmtops will |>not be |>acceptable. If we stick with names under comp.sys.handhelds, |>comp.sys.handhelds.handhelds & comp.sys.handhelds.palmtops doesn't |>quite make |>it. I know some of you think that whatever makes sense to you as a |>reworking of |>the namespace must obviously be a candidate solution, but I found out |>otherwise. Excuse me? Comp.sys.handhelds exists now. That must carry some weight in terms of it being acceptable. If we go with the naming that seems to be gaining support, then the new group would be comp.sys.palmtops. Seems to fit the pre-approved hierarchy, but since this is being discussed publicly in news.groups then the net.gods have a chance to speak. |>2) Every proposal I have tried (comp.sys.handhelds.hp, |>comp.sys.handhelds.hp48, |>comp.sys.handhelds.hp2848, to name a few) has had a number of zealots |>who hate |>it. Most of these people seem to take the attitude that "we don't |>really need a |>split, but...". Well, there are a lot of people who feel we need a |>split, and |>we aren't going to be convinced that a group that is defacto HP48 |>programmers |>is appropriately named comp.sys.handhelds just because a few people |>can't stand |>the idea of reading two newsgroups because the split is not exactly |>along the |>lines they desire. Excuse me again, but this latest round of postings sounds like it's *you* who are throwing a tantrum over not having the split go the way you desire. You personally don't get the dictate the name. The group creation guidelines require that there be open discussion and the name be arrived at by consensus then voted on. So far, there seems to be a movement toward general groupings and AWAY from a specific group for HP48's only. I'm sure there are people who agree with your desire to isolate the HP48 from everyone else, but unless they speak up, voting an HP48-only group will clearly fly in the face of the group creation guidelines. |>3) There are several individuals (and I'm sure you know who you are) whose |>opinions are well known. I would appreciate it if some other people |>would make |>their opinions known. Not that I don't love hearing from all of |>you... Odd as it sounds, I join Jeff in soliciting opinions from the readership at large. I believe he's wrong in thinking that an HP48-only group is a good solution, but I believe more in open discussion and consensus. Remember that the more discussion in news.groups the better a chance of the final solution being acceptable to all. -- >>>==>PStJTT Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD "Nerd" is so demeaning, I prefer "fashion-impared."
matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) (05/21/91)
In article <7567@rex.cs.tulane.edu> mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) writes: > 3) There are several individuals (and I'm sure you know who you are) > whose opinions are well known. I would appreciate it if some other > people would make their opinions known. Not that I don't love hearing > from all of you... All right, my opinions: First of all, I think it is obvious that the hp48 deserves its own newsgroup. It is a computer with a large, and vocal, base of users and programmers---programmers, I might add, in at least three different languages. Over the course of a year, it has been demonstrated that there is a sustained interest in the hp48. (I also think it is obvious that the hp48 should not be grouped with other HP products, for the same reason that the IBM PC should not be grouped with the IBM 360: there is nothing in common but the manufacturer.) I think, further, that the newsgroup name should have hp48 in it. Remember, after all, what the purpose of newsgroup names is: it is to tell people who are unfamiliar with a group what the group is about. "comp.sys.handhelds" fails miserably on this count, and I hope we can choose a name that does better. I don't think that we should be worried about any master reorganization plans of comp.sys.handhelds, or about subdivisions of the hp48 newsgroup. Let's take it one step at a time, and see what things are like after the hp48 newsgroup is created---I suspect that that will solve most of our problems. If we need to subdivide things further, we can worry about it when the time comes. I'm not terribly dogmatic about names. I'd be happy with comp.sys.handhelds.hp48, or comp.sys.hp48, or comp.sys.hp.hp48. I just want the name to make it clear that this is an hp48 newsgroup. Finally, my opinion is that Jeff Mandel has demonstrated extraordinary patience. His first vote was clearly a victory, and I'm sorry that the creation of a demonstrably necessary newsgroup was blocked by people who have yet to reveal their objections, or even their names. -- Matthew Austern Just keep yelling until you attract a (415) 644-2618 crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a austern@lbl.bitnet faction, an army! If you don't have any matt@physics.berkeley.edu solutions, become a part of the problem!
rsholmes@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Rich Holmes) (05/21/91)
In article <7567@rex.cs.tulane.edu> mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu writes: >1) Unless I seriously misunderstand David Lawrence (and he is invited to >correct me), the idea of comp.sys.handhelds, comp.sys.palmtops will not be >acceptable. I'd be interested in hearing (from David) why not. >If we stick with names under comp.sys.handhelds, >comp.sys.handhelds.handhelds & comp.sys.handhelds.palmtops doesn't quite make >it. I'd be interested in hearing (from Jeff) why not. Of course, c.s.hh.hh is UGLY, but how about c.s.hh and c.s.hh.palmtops? Or c.s.hh.calculators and c.s.hh.palmtops? >I know some of you think that whatever makes sense to you as a reworking of >the namespace must obviously be a candidate solution, but I found out >otherwise. I'd be interested in hearing details of "otherwise". What are the require- ments besides that there be a consensus among us? -- - Rich Holmes rich@suhep.bitnet or rich@suhep.phy.syr.edu Syracuse U. Physics Dept. or if you must: rsholmes@rodan.acs.syr.edu The Kuwaitis have oil. The Kurds don't. End of story.
kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) (05/21/91)
In article <MATT.91May20121228@physics16.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes: ... >First of all, I think it is obvious that the hp48 deserves its own newsgroup. ... >I think, further, that the newsgroup name should have hp48 in it. ... >I don't think that we should be worried about any master reorganization plans >of comp.sys.handhelds, or about subdivisions of the hp48 newsgroup. Let's take >it one step at a time, and see what things are like after the hp48 newsgroup >is created---I suspect that that will solve most of our problems. ... >I'm not terribly dogmatic about names. ... I agree with everything that Mathew said in his post, most importantly, with the items that I quote above. The only thing that I would like to add, is that I do not think that the group should be moderated. I have been reading comp.sys.handhelds for over a year, and except for a few requests for asc, and a few requests to be unsubscribed from the mailing list, there hasn't been a single post that I would have liked some moderator to reject for me. I bet that a lot of people feel this way. Michael -- Michael Kaufman | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on kaufman | fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in @eecs.nwu.edu | the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be | lost in time - like tears in rain. Time to die. Roy Batty
conrad@popvax.uucp (M20400@c.nobili) (05/21/91)
In article <7567@rex.cs.tulane.edu> mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu writes: >... I know some of you think that whatever makes sense to you as a reworking of >the namespace must obviously be a candidate solution, but I found out >otherwise. Do you have some good reason for saying this? Have the powers that be said that the namespace cannot be changed? What are the exact limitations? Please tell us what you know.... I think everyone agrees that your last suggestion was garbage. It grows more and more clear that there is something of a consensus in favor of creating two new groups: comp.sys.calculators and comp.sys.palmtops, and destroying the old comp.sys.handhelds. If that is considered to be too much of a change to the namespace, then maybe we can accomodate that concern by re-inserting .handhelds after the sys part. I know that leaves long names, but who _really_ cares. I suspect that most people have a .newsrc file (with comp.sys.handhelds at the top at the moment I hope! ;-) which takes care of all the names. And if the palmtop people don't like that term (I might suggest that it IS common in the industry) then they could maybe choose "organizers" or something. (Personally, I think the term "palmtop" will start seeming better as the HP95LX begins to dominate that market....) So, I see a consensus forming for the ideal: comp.sys.calculators comp.sys.palmtops or comp.sys.organizers But, if we cannot create any new namespaces outside of comp.sys.handhelds: comp.sys.handhelds.calculators comp.sys.handhelds.palmtops or comp.sys.handhelds.organizers Or, if we just cannot destroy comp.sys.handhelds: comp.sys.handhelds comp.sys.palmtops or comp.sys.organizers None of this addresses the sources-and-binaries issue, as I see that as separate and easily accomodated by either the current or any of the proposed namespaces above. I suggest that perhaps we should consider voting on the above proposals depend- ing on what the parameters are. Please enlighten us, Jeff, if there are more restrictions than some of us had assumed.... If Jeff's RFD is going to have limited flexibility (and a hidden agenda? -- what sort of machine does he use?) then I'm inclined to recommend that we just wait for the vote, shoot down any action, and make a new RFD. I think that the hor- rifying prospect of more pollution of this news group with these RFDs will make Jeff and the net.whatevers come around.... Seriously, I think we have a consensus.... >Jeff E Mandel MD MS >Asst. Professor of Anesthesiology >Tulane University School of Medicine >New Orleans, LA >mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu +---- 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 ----+
conrad@popvax.uucp (M20400@c.nobili) (05/21/91)
<MATT.91May20121228@physics16.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu : ><7567@rex.cs.tulane.edu> mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) : > >> 3) There are several individuals (and I'm sure you know who you are) >> whose opinions are well known. I would appreciate it if some other >> people would make their opinions known. Not that I don't love hearing >> from all of you... Yes, definitely. Let's hear from everybody! I am almost as sick of posting things as you all probably are of reading what I post (those of you who haven't figured out kill files, that is... ;-) ). I am being vocal because I think there are lots of shy people out there with the same ideas. I am willing to bet that there are lots of people who are too confused by this whole process to know how to participate. As you can see, however, it is not as good to read this stuff and to think to yourself "yeah, that's right, I like that" or "God, what a dumb idea" as it is actually to post those thoughts. The network wants to see a popular consensus, not a volume of stuff from a few cranks like me! >I think, further, that the newsgroup name should have hp48 in it. >Remember, after all, what the purpose of newsgroup names is: it is to >tell people who are unfamiliar with a group what the group is about. >"comp.sys.handhelds" fails miserably on this count, and I hope we can >choose a name that does better. >I'm not terribly dogmatic about names. I'd be happy with >comp.sys.handhelds.hp48, or comp.sys.hp48, or comp.sys.hp.hp48. I >just want the name to make it clear that this is an hp48 newsgroup. I agree that unenlightening names do everyone a disservice. But who would not expect to find HP48 stuff in a group called comp.sys.calculators?! Or that such a group would be about calculators?! Or that such a group might _not_ be about "palmtops" or "organizers"?! >-- >Matthew Austern Just keep yelling until you attract a >(415) 644-2618 crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a >austern@lbl.bitnet faction, an army! If you don't have any >matt@physics.berkeley.edu solutions, become a part of the problem! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I guess that is what I am trying to do! P.S. You will probably all be immensely pleased that I am going on vacation for several days and likely won't be able to read (and post) news! So others must take up the keyboard and fight for what they want! I have probably outlived my believability anyway.... +---- 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 ----+
jamesv@hplsla.HP.COM (James Vasil) (05/21/91)
> 3) There are several individuals (and I'm sure you know who you are) whose > opinions are well known. I would appreciate it if some other people would make > their opinions known. Not that I don't love hearing from all of you... I, for one, don't really care what is done, but I'm pretty tired of having to skip over all the discussion on the split. It seems that about 1/4 the traffic here is on whether or not the group should be split. I can't speak for anyone else, but I no longer read c.s.h more than once or twice a month because of all the noise it contains. Regards, James
ruhtra@turing.toronto.edu (Arthur Tateishi) (05/21/91)
In article <7567@rex.cs.tulane.edu> mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu writes: >I would appreciate it if some other people would make >their opinions known. Well, I'm generally in support of this palmtops/handhelds or palmtops/handhelds split but I still feel that the hp48 can sustain its own newsgroup. I'm not happy with the idea of splitting "en masse" to programmers/organizers/calcs/rpl/rpn/infix/palmtops/msdos/ ........ because I think cross posting will be a problem, archiving will become very difficult, and discussions will be hard to follow. For instance, the HP48 has so much versatility that many of us use it as a calendar, appointment, todo, alarms, games, stats, terminal, etc machine. Oh yeah, we also use it as a calculator. It also seems that most of us hp48'ers are interested in ALL of these aspects. Therefore, causing the 48 people to spread among several groups is not a good solution. We can live quite fine in one group. This is why I supported the c.s.h.hp48[.d] split. -- Red Alert. -- Q, "Deja Q", stardate 43539.1 Arthur Tateishi ruhtra@turing.utoronto.ca
ruhtra@turing.toronto.edu (Arthur Tateishi) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.224156.19428@eecs.nwu.edu> kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes: >the items that I quote above. The only thing that I would like to add, is >that I do not think that the group should be moderated. I have been reading I second this motion. I think the c.s.h people have shown themselves to be a generally intelligent lot who enjoy keeping noise/signal ratios down. (Except for these ^%$#^% split discussions. :-) ) -- Red Alert. -- Q, "Deja Q", stardate 43539.1 Arthur Tateishi ruhtra@turing.utoronto.ca
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/21/91)
rsholmes@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Rich Holmes) writes: > Of course, c.s.hh.hh is UGLY, but how about c.s.hh and c.s.hh.palmtops? Or > c.s.hh.calculators and c.s.hh.palmtops? c.s.hh.misc and c.s.hh.palmtops -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' Taronga Park BBS +1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1 Taronga Park. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) (05/21/91)
In article <6831@husc6.harvard.edu> conrad@popvax.uucp (M20400@c.nobili) writes: >It grows more and more clear that there is something of a consensus in favor >of creating two new groups: comp.sys.calculators and comp.sys.palmtops, To me, it is growing more and more clear that no matter how many people post messages in favor of some sort of hp48 only group, that people like Conrad here will continue to say that there is a concensus in favor the 'plamtops' idea. As I, and another keep posting, many of us like the idea of the hp48 only group. Michael -- Michael Kaufman | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on kaufman | fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in @eecs.nwu.edu | the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be | lost in time - like tears in rain. Time to die. Roy Batty
ksmith@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Karl J. Smith) (05/21/91)
The original problem was that posts about the 48 were drowning out everything else - so give the 48 its own newsgroup. A sources group is a good idea, too (and nobody seems to be against it.) Matt seems to have expressed this best, so once again: In article <MATT.91May20121228@physics16.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.ed writes: ... >First of all, I think it is obvious that the hp48 deserves its own newsgroup. ... >I think, further, that the newsgroup name should have hp48 in it. ... >I don't think that we should be worried about any master reorganization plans >of comp.sys.handhelds, or about subdivisions of the hp48 newsgroup. Let's take >it one step at a time, and see what things are like after the hp48 newsgroup >is created---I suspect that that will solve most of our problems. ... >I'm not terribly dogmatic about names. ... We already had a vote about this, and it passed. The reason we're doing a rehash is because of the confusion about running two votes in parallel (permitted) versus running a single vote to create two groups (not permitted). Can we please just get on with another vote (in parallel) for the two groups? Jeff Mandel, could you please repost the summary that you posted after talking to Gene Spafford? He made two good suggestions for group names that fit into the namespace and were what most of us have already voted for (a moderated 48 sources group and a 48 group). -Karl Smith ksmith@jarthur.claremont.edu
HCLIMER%UTCVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (HArold Climer) (05/21/91)
I would prefer a split into copm.sys.handheld.hpcal if this is possible. I am
one of those people who has several HP calculators. (A 41CV,an HP28S,and a 48)
Although I am using the 48 most of the time now I still use both the 41 and
the 41 and 28 from time to time. Especially the 41 because of the software
modules I have for it.
Harold Climer
Physics Department
U. Tennessee at Chattanooga
C3P0 "He does make mistakes;from time to time"HCLIMER%UTCVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (HArold Climer) (05/21/91)
Your statement about 48 people not having interests in other HP calculators
is way off the mark. As to the other HP calculators not being related; I
wonder where you have been for the last 11 or 12 years during the development
of the 41,the 28,and the 48. Haven't you read Mr. Wickes books ?
It seems to me that you are implying that once one buys and uses
a new machine his or her mind becomes closed to something new and interesting
in someone elses backyard. I don't know about you but this is not the case with
me. I use a PC now but I still use my Commodore 64 and 128 and find new ways
to tweak it's tail interesting and enlightening.
Harold Climer
Physics Department
U. Tennessee at Chattanooga
C3P0 "He makes mistakes; from time to time"toddb@probe.EBay.Sun.COM (Todd Bernhard) (05/22/91)
I PROMISE this will be my second and last posting on the subject!!! Let's take things one at a time, and just split the group between calculators and palmtop computers....I don't care much about what title each group has. THEN, if the calculator group is too overwhelmed, they can subdivide along brand/model (hp/48), etc.....at least those of us who just want info on palmtop computers can be out of that discussion. Similarly, if the hp95LX takes up too much bandwidth of the palmtop computer group, then we can subdivide that without annoying the calculator folks. My *recommended* titles are as follows, but what is more important is calcs vs palmtops. comp.sys.handhelds (for handheld computer systems) ex. HP95LX, Atari Portfolio, Wizard, BOSS comp.sys.calculators (for programmable calculators) ex. HP48, HP__, TI___, etc. this creates minimal change, and if the need arises, further subdivisions can be made (c.s.hh.hp, c.s.hh.atari, and c.s.c.hp, etc). ---todd In article <1991May21.151311.32128@eecs.nwu.edu> kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes: >In article <6831@husc6.harvard.edu> conrad@popvax.uucp (M20400@c.nobili) writes: >>It grows more and more clear that there is something of a consensus in favor >>of creating two new groups: comp.sys.calculators and comp.sys.palmtops, > >To me, it is growing more and more clear that no matter how many people post >messages in favor of some sort of hp48 only group, that people like Conrad here >will continue to say that there is a concensus in favor the 'plamtops' idea. > >As I, and another keep posting, many of us like the idea of the hp48 only >group. > >Michael > >-- >Michael Kaufman | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on > kaufman | fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in > @eecs.nwu.edu | the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be > | lost in time - like tears in rain. Time to die. Roy Batty -- Todd Bernhard, Sun Micro, US Field Mktg - Milpitas, CA 408-276-1542 toddb@Sun.COM ....!sun!toddb (Having the Right to be Wrong does NOT imply the Obligation.)
mcgrant@elaine10.Stanford.EDU (Michael Grant) (05/22/91)
Look, personally I DON'T see a consensus here. For example, I am HIGHLY supportive of putting the hp line in its own group, and the .hp48 naming scheme seems great to me. I think this paranoid junk about 'self appointed net police' (I refuse to put that pretentious little period in there) is exactly that-JUNK. Once the smoke clears and the new group is up and running, I for one am not going to have comp.sys.handhelds in my newsrc at all. Secondly, a lot of people would like to see a split down the lines of handhelds versus palmtops. FINE. Get your derrier in gear, then, and make a SEPARATE proposal to start up comp.sys.palmtops. I personally don't think that it has to be one or the other, I think it is perfectly reasonable to install BOTH new newsgroups. BUT, I also believe that it is going to take another proposal altogether. Jeff Mandel is certainly putting a lot more effort into this than ANYONE who disagrees with him. I won't believe otherwise until I see another proposal. So here's the story: veto the comp.sys.handhelds.hp48 proposal if it makes your boxers creep up a little too high. Make ANOTHER proposal for comp.sys.palmtops, and I'll GLADLY vote for it. What will be left of comp.sys.handhelds? Frankly, it may not be much, but at least the people that DO use it won't have to wade through all of the whining about newsgroup changes, or the voluminous HP48 postings which noone seems to remember to label as such in the 'Subject' line, and so forth. So we'll all have split up into our own little corners, and those people who like to read it all can do so, and everyone is happy. Mark one yes vote down for the current proposal AS WELL as any decent comp.sys.palmtops proposal that comes along. Michael C. Grant Information Systems Laboratory Stanford University mcgrant@isl.stanford.edu
matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) (05/22/91)
In article <6831@husc6.harvard.edu> conrad@popvax.uucp (M20400@c.nobili) writes: > So, I see a consensus forming for the ideal: > comp.sys.calculators > comp.sys.palmtops or comp.sys.organizers Here is my objection to comp.sys.calculators. I see two possibilities. Possibility 1: The group will consist exclusively, or almost exclusively, of discussion about the hp48. In that case, why be coy? Why not just call it comp.sys.hp48 in the first place? Possibility 2: The group will discuss many different kinds of calculators. This, I submit, would be a Bad Thing. The hp48 doesn't have enough in common with any other calculator (except for the hp28, of course) so that they should be lumped into the same group. I, for one, have no interest in TI's or whatever. I don't think I'm alone. I believe that there is enough interest in the hp48 to sustain a newsgroup. If sufficient interest develops for other calculators/handheld computers, we can create groups for them later. -- Matthew Austern Just keep yelling until you attract a (415) 644-2618 crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a austern@lbl.bitnet faction, an army! If you don't have any matt@physics.berkeley.edu solutions, become a part of the problem!
sutton@s2.elec.uq.oz (Peter Sutton) (05/22/91)
As a 28S owner who is interested in the HP48SX, I make the following
suggestion:
comp.sys.calculators.hp48 - for HP48 (and 28?) postings
comp.sys.calculators - for other calculators (not that we hear
much about others at present)
comp.sys.palmtops (or whatever) - for DOS machines (Portfolio,
HP95LX, etc)
I think that it is important to make a split along the lines
of calculators / DOS machines. I also think that the 48/28 should have
a separate group - the number of postings about the 48 certainly warrants
it.
I don't think the 48 group should be taken too far away from other
calulators though. (I don't agree with a comp.sys.hp48 group.)
What does every one else think?
Peter Sutton sutton@s1.elec.uq.oz.au
Department of Electrical Engineering
The University of Queensland Queensland Australia 4072mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) (05/22/91)
If there is a consensus evolving, I am not sure what it is. In any event, it is clear to me that there are two divergent camps - the HP48-only group and the palmtops/calculators group. I am quite sure that I now who the vocal members of each group are; how much support each position has is not at all clear. If there is one issue which seems not to have generated controversy, it is the idea of a moderated comp.sources.hp48 group. Unless someone wishes to voice an objection to that, I plan to proceed with the CFV on that next week, as I believe it will succeed in short order. Now, the more nettlesome question. A number of people have advanced the suggestion that the split be c.s.palmtops/c.s.calculators (or something similar). Despite what anyone has suggested, I can live with this, IF IT SUCCEEDS. By now, many of you will have read the revision of the newgroup rules, and amongst other things, they provide for a six month wait for failures under some circumstances. Now I know that no one out there wants another 6 months of bellyaching on this, so I think that whatever we do, we need to make sure that it has broad-based support. I have been communicating with a number of the "you know who you are" crowd, and have strongly suggested they draft an RFD on the palmtops/calculator split, so that we can all have someone other than me to flame :-). If the consensus of the group is that this is the better proposal, Chris and I will withdraw the previous RFD (Oh gosh, I guess I'll have to revise my CV). If the consensus is that the group wants an HP48-only group, I presume that we can reactivate the RFD. There are some who suggest that I have a hidden agenda. My agenda is to back the winning proposal. Remember, I live in Louisiana, where we face an open gubernatorial primary with the former head of the KKK and a man twice indicted for malfeasance, either of which could make the runoff. I know about the value of picking a winner. Jeff E Mandel MD MS Asst. Professor of Anesthesiology Tulane University School of Medicine New Orleans, LA mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu
bson@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Jan Brittenson) (05/22/91)
In a posting of [20 May 91 22:41:56 GMT] kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes: > In article <MATT.91May20121228@physics16.berkeley.edu> > matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes: >> Let's take it one step at a time, and see what things are like after >> the hp48 newsgroup is created---I suspect that that will solve most of >> our problems. > The only thing that I would like to add, is that I do not think that > the group should be moderated. I agree. There is absolutely no reason for moderation. Automatic archiving is a very good idea. So is maintaining an FAQ, but this is already being done. There are no deeply entrenched religious factions fighting here. No flame wars, only an occasional acidic comment (a not too recent posting by Alonzo Gariepy comes to mind). > I have been reading comp.sys.handhelds for over a year, and except for > a few requests for asc, As far back as I can remember (i.e. 1986? ;-) ) ...handhelds has been a very polite and friendly newsgroup. As such it is a rare gem, and *hopefully* its traditions will be inherited by ...hp48. --- On a general note: The obvious problem is that HP-48 postings are more voluminous than all other postings combined. Trying to settle this problem by creating ...palmtops and ...calculators is somewhat like trying to settle it by creating all.systems.that.begin.with.an.F and all.other.systems. It's not in response to the problem of too-many-hp48-postings, but rather to the problem let's-reshuffle-the-hierarchy-because-the-name-is-not- obvious-to-me. I find it much less apparent whether HP-48 postings should go to ...palmtops or ...calculators, or both. The problem of ...handhelds is closely associated with a very specific product that's going to be around for many years to come. The `HP-48 Problem' applies not only to MS-DOS handhelds users, but also to calculator users. And it was HP-28 users among others who originally wanted the HP-48 users to have their own newsgroup. My second argument is that there is not enough discussion about MS-DOS handhelds to support a newsgroup of its own, which anyway, if it is ever created, should be called "...msdos", not "...palmtops". Given the current volume there is not a snowball's chance in hell a vote for such a group will succeed. If I didn't know better, I might be inclined to believe that some readers are trying to create their own pet newsgroups by claiming to solve the `HP-48 Problem'! So we split into ...calculators - what happens next? The complaints will still be there - "That damn HP-48 drowns us HP-28 users." Soon there will be calls for yet another split. The question about whether ...handhelds should be split is basically irrelevant to the issue of whether the HP-48 discussion should live in a newsgroup of its own. Let's create ...hp48. Then decide whether ...handhelds needs to be split. My guess is that there will be 25 or so postings per week left. Barely sufficient to warrant a ...handhelds by itself! I can certainly understand the people who think this is a short-sighted solution, and say there will be lots of MS-DOS handhelds users out there in a few years, like there are MS-DOS portables (so-called lapdogs) today. But that's a *separate* issue, to be dealt with *then*, when it arises. -- Jan Brittenson bson@ai.mit.edu
rudd@calvin.stanford.edu (Kevin Rudd) (05/22/91)
In article <378@s2.elec.uq.oz> sutton@s2.elec.uq.oz (Peter Sutton) writes: >As a 28S owner who is interested in the HP48SX, I make the following >suggestion: > comp.sys.calculators.hp48 - for HP48 (and 28?) postings > comp.sys.calculators - for other calculators (not that we hear > much about others at present) > comp.sys.palmtops (or whatever) - for DOS machines (Portfolio, > HP95LX, etc) > >I think that it is important to make a split along the lines >of calculators / DOS machines. I also think that the 48/28 should have >a separate group - the number of postings about the 48 certainly warrants >it. > >I don't think the 48 group should be taken too far away from other >calulators though. (I don't agree with a comp.sys.hp48 group.) > >What does every one else think? One of the most non-inflammatory messages in this wasteful thread. I agree 99%. I see no compelling reason to change handhelds to calculators, although it is not a big concern to me. As far as keeping the status quo, the concept of flat files went out with CP/M and DOS 1.xx (and never existed conceptually with the Mac). Lets make it go away here as well. Except for those who pay on a per-list basis (and I am not sure what fraction these comprise), the only people who would seem to be affected would be those who want to look at everything anyway and don't wan't to manually subscribe to more than one newsgroup. Small inconvenience for the increase in personal choice as to what messages are viewed. Most of the newsgroups on the net seem to ascribe to the hierarchical principle to minimize the conflicting traffic in any given newsgroup. Lets fix this now and avoid a third vote... > >Peter Sutton sutton@s1.elec.uq.oz.au >Department of Electrical Engineering >The University of Queensland Queensland Australia 4072 -- Kevin -- kevin@trump.Stanford.EDU rudd@umunhum.Stanford.EDU kevinw@leleand.Stanford.EDU
kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) (05/22/91)
I posted on this earlier, but it seems to have gotten eaten without being sent. In article <7601@rex.cs.tulane.edu> mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu writes: >If there is one issue which seems not to have generated controversy, it is the >idea of a moderated comp.sources.hp48 group. Unless someone wishes to voice an >objection to that, I plan to proceed with the CFV on that next week, as I >believe it will succeed in short order. I don't like this idea for two reasons: I don't think we need two hp48 specific groups. I really don't think that there is anyone out there who would read c.sources.hp48 and not c.sys.hp48 (or calculators or whatever). So having more then one group would cause all the disadvantages of two groups (multiple mailing lists, mulitple archives, cross posts etc) without any of the advantages of two groups (automatic pruning for people who are not interested in both). Even if the group is created, I would not like to see if moderated. I have been reading c.s.h for over a year, and except for a few requests for asc, and a few requests to be unsubscribed, there haven't been any posts that I would have wanted someone else to discard for me. I urge everyone who is against this to speak up, so we can quash this evil satan-inspired (Just kidding Jeff) idea in the bud. Michael -- Michael Kaufman | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on kaufman | fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in @eecs.nwu.edu | the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be | lost in time - like tears in rain. Time to die. Roy Batty
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/22/91)
sutton@s2.elec.uq.oz (Peter Sutton) writes: > comp.sys.calculators.hp48 - for HP48 (and 28?) postings > comp.sys.calculators - for other calculators > comp.sys.palmtops (or whatever) - for DOS machines > I think that it is important to make a split along the lines > of calculators / DOS machines. DOS based handhelds should be a subgroup of comp.os.msdos or comp.sys.ibm.pc, before their own comp.sys subgroup. It was my understanding that the palmtops were more like the Wizard and other organizers. Perhaps the problem is that different groups here have different ideas of what hardware is out there? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' Taronga Park BBS +1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1 Taronga Park. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May22.032223.27895@eecs.nwu.edu>, kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes: |>Path: | ryn.mro4.dec.com!hollie.rdg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!zaphod. .mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!kaufman |>From: kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) |>Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds |>Subject: Re: RFD comp.sys.handelds split |>Message-ID: <1991May22.032223.27895@eecs.nwu.edu> |>Date: 22 May 91 03:22:23 GMT |>References: <7601@rex.cs.tulane.edu> |>Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University |>Lines: 33 |> |>I posted on this earlier, but it seems to have gotten eaten without |>being sent. |> |>In article <7601@rex.cs.tulane.edu> mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu |>writes: |>>If there is one issue which seems not to have generated controversy, |>it is the |>>idea of a moderated comp.sources.hp48 group. Unless someone wishes to |>voice an |>>objection to that, I plan to proceed with the CFV on that next week, |>as I |>>believe it will succeed in short order. |> |>I don't like this idea for two reasons: |> |>I don't think we need two hp48 specific groups. I really don't think |>that there |>is anyone out there who would read c.sources.hp48 and not c.sys.hp48 |>(or |>calculators or whatever). So having more then one group would cause |>all the |>disadvantages of two groups (multiple mailing lists, mulitple |>archives, cross |>posts etc) without any of the advantages of two groups (automatic |>pruning for |>people who are not interested in both). |> |>Even if the group is created, I would not like to see if moderated. I |>have |>been reading c.s.h for over a year, and except for a few requests for |>asc, and |>a few requests to be unsubscribed, there haven't been any posts that I |>would |>have wanted someone else to discard for me. |> |>I urge everyone who is against this to speak up, so we can quash this |>evil |>satan-inspired (Just kidding Jeff) idea in the bud. I think you misunderstand the reason moderated source groups exist. It's not an alternate place for discussion. It's more like an archive for posted source code. It is relatively low volume compared to a discussion group and because there is a moderator gating access, there are no cross-posts, flame-wars or other things we've come to love about traditional newsgroups. It exists so when the weekly questions, "Where do I get Tetris?" "Can someone re-post ASC->?" can be answered by a reference to the sources group. Ideally, those huge multi-hundred or multi-thousand line postings of source code that now go into the discussion group would be sent to the source group. The discussion group would remain essentially unchanged but, if people cooperate, it would have its traffic load reduced. -- >>>==>PStJTT Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD Those who think, write. Those who can't, spell.
streeter@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Kenneth B Streeter) (05/24/91)
In article <6831@husc6.harvard.edu> conrad@popvax.uucp (M20400@c.nobili) writes: >In article <7567@rex.cs.tulane.edu> mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu writes: >>... I know some of you think that whatever makes sense to you as a reworking of >>the namespace must obviously be a candidate solution, but I found out >>otherwise. I, too would like to hear more about what exactly caused the previous vote to be considered invalid... >I think everyone agrees that your [Jeff Mandel's] last suggestion was >garbage. This is not at all true. The previous suggestion was voted on, and PASSED! This hardly implies that "everyone agrees.. [it] was garbage". However, in the time since the prior discussion, it has become all the more clear that discussion is rapidly developing on the MS-DOS compatible "palmtop" market. (Including the Portfolio, and HP95LX.) The original discussion, however was trying to create separate groups for non-HP48 calculators (or possibly HP48/HP28, or all HP) and the HP48 calculators (or possibly HP48/HP28, or all HP). I would prefer to see at least three groups: one for discussing the HP48 (*) one for discussing non-HP48 (*) calculators one for discussing MS-DOS compatible "palmtops" I really don't care what the groups are called, as long as they make some sense in letting newusers find the groups. -- 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)
streeter@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Kenneth B Streeter) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May21.195406.28119@leland.Stanford.EDU> mcgrant@elaine10.Stanford.EDU (Michael Grant) writes: >Look, personally I DON'T see a consensus here. About time somebody admitted this. Almost everybody else seems to be saying that they see a consensus on different things... >So here's the story: ... comp.sys.handhelds.hp48... > ... comp.sys.palmtops... > ... What will be left of comp.sys.handhelds? ... not ... much, > but at least the people that DO use it won't have to wade >through all of the whining about newsgroup changes... Yay! A proposal that create the three necessary groups: a place for the HP48 to not drown out miscellaneous calculators, a place for the growing "palmtop" discussion (MSDOS compatible handhelds) and the other calculators that currently have only a feeble discussion! -- 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)
chris@itc.univie.ac.at (Christian Forst) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May24.013054.27839@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> streeter@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Kenneth B Streeter) writes: [stuff deleted] > >However, in the time since the prior discussion, it has become all the >more clear that discussion is rapidly developing on the MS-DOS >compatible "palmtop" market. (Including the Portfolio, and HP95LX.) >The original discussion, however was trying to create separate groups >for non-HP48 calculators (or possibly HP48/HP28, or all HP) and the >HP48 calculators (or possibly HP48/HP28, or all HP). > >I would prefer to see at least three groups: > >one for discussing the HP48 (*) >one for discussing non-HP48 (*) calculators >one for discussing MS-DOS compatible "palmtops" > >I really don't care what the groups are called, as long as they make >some sense in letting newusers find the groups. Well, I would generalize the subject to newsgroups concerning all HP calculators (to have in mind that the HP28 and HP48 are strongly related to each other): one for discussing the HP calculators one for discussing non-HP calculators one for discussing MS-DOS compatible "palmtops" and of course at least one moderate newsgroup for progamm-sources for the HP48 (or all HP calculators - mostly HP48 and HP28) Christian +---------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ | Christian Forst | | | | Phone: +43-1-43-61-41-70 | | gargl, wonz, bazong, zawapp, gurp, | Fax: +43-1-40-28-525 | | schwuppdi, bla, bingo, murx, boink, | Email: chris@itc.univie.ac.at | | zappadong, hau wech, knurps, ... | a8443gae@vm.univie.ac.at | | | A8443GAE@AWIUNI11.BITNET | | No more comments on Disclaimers ... | | +---------------------------------------+------------------------------------+