mueller@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Carl Mueller) (03/11/91)
I vote for the split. I don't understand why people are opposed to the split. (There was one person who expressed some concern about whether he would be able to get access to the new newsgroup whatever it eventually gets called and this concern seems valid, but that is the only valid concern I've seen.) Most of the people who are against the split seem to be HP-48SX owners who just seem to be whining about other people whining. They say to owners of other calculators "Just post your stuff ... this newsgroup is for ALL handhelds." Well, while this is true, as a HP-48SX owner myself, I'd rather not have to wade through a zillion of non-HP postings just to find the latest and greatest HP stuff. It seems in our (HP-48 owners) best interest to have our own newsgroup. And it is clearly in the best interest of owners of other handhelds for us to split off. So why don't we just do it? As for the name of the group ... comp.sys.hp48 ... comp.sys.handhelds.hp2848 .... whatever it really doesn't make any difference to me. LET'S JUST DO IT! Carl Mueller (mueller@math.wisc.edu) P.S. I just got an equations card ... very nice! :-)
akcs.falco@hpcvbbs.UUCP (Andrey Dolgachev) (03/12/91)
Carl Mueller says
> as a HP-48SX owner myself, I'd rather not have to wade through a
zillion of non-HP postings just to find the latest and greatest HP stuff
You gotta be kiddin' me, Carl, zillion of non-HP stuff. There's about 1
for every 10, and that's conservative. Actually, come to thik of it,
there is a lot of it now, or at least a lot of messages about the split.
I think the split is the best thing that could have happened to the
non-HP users, they finally have something to talk about with themselves
and with HP users.
---Falco
P.S.: What was that suggestion to make a comp.sys.splithandhelds group?
I think that's an excellent idea, this proposed split has genereated more
problems with overload of messages than it has yet solved or prob. will
solve. Just my first and only $.02mueller@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Carl Mueller) (03/12/91)
In article <27dc113e:2384.1comp.sys.handhelds;1@hpcvbbs.UUCP> akcs.falco@hpcvbbs.UUCP (Andrey Dolgachev) writes: >Carl Mueller says >> as a HP-48SX owner myself, I'd rather not have to wade through a >zillion of non-HP postings just to find the latest and greatest HP stuff > >You gotta be kiddin' me, Carl, zillion of non-HP stuff. There's about 1 >for every 10, and that's conservative. I wasn't referring to the current volume of non-HP stuff. But people who are opposed to the split are telling the non-HP owners to just post as much stuff as they want. I certainly think that owners of all handhelds should be posting stuff here. But currently non-HP owners are intimidated by the volume of HP-48 stuff. If all of a sudden other owners actually started posting a whole bunch of stuff, we (the HP-48 owners) would have to start wading through lots and lots of non-HP stuff. I'd rather not have that happen. The solution? SPLIT THE GROUP. It seems so obvious. Any of us HP-owners who want to read the other stuff still can. Any of the non-HP owners who want to read the HP-48 stuff still can. But any of either group who don't want to read the other group's messages can avoid doing so. And, it seems clear that non-HP owners are not going to use this newsgroup to its full potential unless we split it. Carl Mueller (mueller@math.wisc.edu)
conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) (03/16/91)
In article <1991Mar11.142217.21407@schaefer.math.wisc.edu>, mueller@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Carl Mueller) writes: > I vote for the split.... > [lots of good reasons deleted] > other handhelds for us to split off. So why don't we just do it? As for the > name of the group ... comp.sys.hp48 ... comp.sys.handhelds.hp2848 .... whatever > it really doesn't make any difference to me. LET'S JUST DO IT! > > Carl Mueller (mueller@math.wisc.edu) > > P.S. I just got an equations card ... very nice! :-) Carl, I agree and I'm with you 100%, but I voted NO to comp.sys.hp48[.d] It's not the issue of the name, no, it's the issue of having a moderated newsgroup. That makes no sense to me. Moderation is useful to control flame wars, and (apart from the CFV ;-) there just hasn't been that much of that here. I might vote YES for one group: an unmoderated comp.sys.hp48, without the discussion group (comp.sys.hp48.d). ------ Tom Conte Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing conte@uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Endeavour
bson@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Jan Brittenson) (03/19/91)
In a posting of [15 Mar 91 19:00:12 GMT] conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) writes: > It's not the issue of the name, no, it's the issue of having a > moderated newsgroup. That makes no sense to me. Moderation is useful > to control flame wars, and (apart from the CFV ;-) there just hasn't > been that much of that here. I agree completely. I usually don't subscribe to moderated newsgroups, I think the only one I do read is comp.compilers. But I will vote yes, since I can always read comp.sys.hp48.d and don't have to subscribe to comp.sys.hp48 at all. -- Jan Brittenson bson@ai.mit.edu Read my lisp: no new classes!
spell@thebeach.UUCP (Chris Spell) (03/19/91)
In <1991Mar15.190012.18656@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) writes: >In article <1991Mar11.142217.21407@schaefer.math.wisc.edu>, mueller@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Carl Mueller) writes: >> I vote for the split.... >> [lots of good reasons deleted] >> other handhelds for us to split off. So why don't we just do it? As for the >> name of the group ... comp.sys.hp48 ... comp.sys.handhelds.hp2848 .... whatever >> it really doesn't make any difference to me. LET'S JUST DO IT! >> >> Carl Mueller (mueller@math.wisc.edu) >> >Carl, I agree and I'm with you 100%, but I voted NO to comp.sys.hp48[.d] >It's not the issue of the name, no, it's the issue of having a moderated >newsgroup. That makes no sense to me. Moderation is useful to control >flame wars, and (apart from the CFV ;-) there just hasn't been that much >of that here. >I might vote YES for one group: an unmoderated comp.sys.hp48, without >the discussion group (comp.sys.hp48.d). >------ >Tom Conte Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing > conte@uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois > Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Endeavour The purpose of the moderated newsgroup comp.sys.hp48 is not to control flame wars. My vision of that group is that it would carry all sources in a uniform form which will download to the calculator without any problems. All the articles would be suitable for archiving with a standard rkive(1) header so that people doing archiving will have less work to do. Also, it would be nice to send the technical documents like the processor notes and such to the moderated newsgroup. The moderated newgroup was not intended to replace the discussion group, only to add to the discussion group. I do not expect nor do I want everyone to send every message to me for posting. That can be sent to comp.sys.hp48.d. If it was a good question with lots of good responses, I will post a summary of the thread on comp.sys.hp48, thus allowing it to be easily archived. Then, if you do not want to wade through all the traffic in the discussion group or you don't want the added bandwidth of the discussion group, you could only subscribe to the moderated group and essentially get everything from the discussion group in a condensed form. Do you not feel that this would be useful to everyone reading this newsgroup?? I personally would think that this would be very useful to everyone interested in the hp48sx. But as it stands now, people don't understand how nice having the moderated group will be so they vote no. Therefore we will probably not have a split. Vote Yes to comp.sys.hp48 & comp.sys.hp48.d. Chris --- ___________________________________________________________________ | spell@[ thebeach.uucp | uncw.uucp | ecsvax.uncecs.edu ] | | {...,gatech,rutgers,decvax}!mcnc!ecsvax!uncw!thebeach!spell | --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ___________________________________________________________________ | spell@[ thebeach.uucp | uncw.uucp | ecsvax.uncecs.edu ] | | {...,gatech,rutgers,decvax}!mcnc!ecsvax!uncw!thebeach!spell | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
wscott@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Wayne H Scott) (03/20/91)
>In <1991Mar15.190012.18656@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) writes: >>It's not the issue of the name, no, it's the issue of having a moderated >>newsgroup. That makes no sense to me. Moderation is useful to control >>flame wars, and (apart from the CFV ;-) there just hasn't been that much >>of that here. > >>I might vote YES for one group: an unmoderated comp.sys.hp48, without >>the discussion group (comp.sys.hp48.d). There will still be a unmoderated comp.sys.hp48 it will be called comp.sys.hp48.d! You don't need to subscribe to comp.sys.hp48 at all and you will never know we have a moderater. There will be no more controls of hp48.d than there are on .handhelds it is just HP-48's only. I really think the new newsgroups are a GOOD idea, and urge everyone to vote YES for the split. With the addition of the the moderated newgroup archiving will be easy and archives of past articles as well as programs will be found on the FTP sites. I know it will make maintaining my mail server much easier. I just don't see how anyone loses with this plan. -- _________________________________________________________________________ Wayne Scott | INTERNET: wscott@ecn.purdue.edu Electrical Engineering | BITNET: wscott%ecn.purdue.edu@purccvm Purdue University | UUCP: {purdue, pur-ee}!ecn.purdue.edu!wscott
rick@pavlov.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) (03/21/91)
In article <719@thebeach.UUCP> spell@thebeach.UUCP (Chris Spell) writes: > > The purpose of the moderated newsgroup comp.sys.hp48 is not to > control flame wars. My vision of that group is that it would carry > all sources in a uniform form which will download to the calculator > without any problems. All the articles would be suitable for > archiving with a standard rkive(1) header so that people doing > archiving will have less work to do. Also, it would be nice to send > the technical documents like the processor notes and such to the > moderated newsgroup. And this is why the call for vote is premature and the discussion should have been brought into the net before calling for vote. The moderated group will include source. The is another group call comp.sources.* which is designed specifically for source listings. This is to allow sites to not include source postings for whatever reasons that site might have. Thus comp.sys.hp48 is misnamed and should be comp.sources.hp48. [IMHO]. The bottom line is that there are certain characteristics of news group proposals which do have an impact beyond what a proponent might believe. It should be discussed by the net at large. -- Richard H. Miller Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu Asst. Dir. for Technical Support Voice: (713)798-3532 Baylor College of Medicine US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H Houston, Texas 77030
mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) (03/21/91)
In article <4849@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, rick@pavlov.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes: >And this is why the call for vote is premature and the discussion should >have been brought into the net before calling for vote. The moderated >group will include source. The is another group call comp.sources.* which >is designed specifically for source listings. This is to allow sites to >not include source postings for whatever reasons that site might have. Thus >comp.sys.hp48 is misnamed and should be comp.sources.hp48. [IMHO]. > >The bottom line is that there are certain characteristics of news group >proposals which do have an impact beyond what a proponent might believe. It >should be discussed by the net at large. >-- It is true that comp.sys.hp will probably include some sources, however, it is intended mainly as a mechanism for distilling the enormous volume of material that is HP48-related down to a manageable volume, and providing assistance in archiving. It is not yet clear that the volume on this group will be sufficient to warrant splitting sources out to another group; besides, what do you do with uuencoded files? Do you then need a binaries group as well to maintain the purity? The point being that this started as an effort to create one new group, and now is creating two groups, and Rick is trying to make it 3 or four groups, in three different hierarchies. Given the number of readers who get this group gatewayed, do you really want to have to worry about that many groups at this point before we see what is going to happen with twoin a single hiearchy? If the volume of HP48 sources is so large as to warrant moving them out of comp.sys.hp48, then mechanisms abound. FTP sites and mail servers come to mind. Personally, I find these preferrable, as I find I never appreciate the importance of most code until it has been expired from my local NNTP server anyway. In any event, it seems to me that while there were some individuals who felt that this was not the approach they wanted (i.e. the .rpn/.tenkey/.saturn proposals), the major consensus that formed was for an HP48 group. It is not clear that those opposing the split are, in large part, ammenable to other proposals; only about one in eight of the no votes have indicated that their reason for opposition is due to the specific implementation, i.e. moderated, domain, etc. [Note that while I do not encourage long diatribes in the votes, I do appreciate the occasional short note, joke, offer of money...]. I suggest that the current proposal, while not being an enduring plan for the ages, will prove workable for the next few years. By then, everyone will have the Cray PenPoint or such, and the HP48 group will be viewed as a bunch of computer historians :-) Jeff E Mandel MD MS Asst. Professor of Anesthesiology Tulane University School of Medicine New Orleans, LA mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu