mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) (02/20/91)
It has been pointed out to me that me last postings were imprecise. There is no yet a call for vote on the creation of comp.sys.handhelds.hp. There is a call for discussion on this issue. While people are free to post whatever they wish, I suggest that we confine the discussion to whether the group will benefit from subdivision, and if so, whether division by brand name is the way to do this. Please, keep it civil. I am only trying to help. Jeff E Mandel MD MS Asst Professor of Anesthesiology Tulane University School of Medicine New Orleans, LA
tim@fonda.ipac.caltech.edu (Tim Conrow) (02/20/91)
I think creation of a specific hp subgroup is the wrong plan. I personally am not bothered by the existence of traffic meant for users of non-hp machines, so I have no problem here. If users of those other machines DO have a problem with it then they are free to better their own circumstances by creating a more specialized newsgroup to cater to them, if they can. Perhaps a time will soon come when traffic from many different interest groups will collide heavily enough to make me wish to seek a specialized hp subgroup. Until then, I don't feel like taking a walk :-) -- Tim Conrow tim@ipac.caltech.edu
kaufman@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) (02/20/91)
If the new group is called c.s.h.hp, I can see a problem for people who
are interested in non-28or48 Hps. For example, in two months hp is coming
out with a machine that is closer to a boss or a wizard. Are we going to
tell those people that they are just out of luck?
I suggest that if we have to divide, (and I - for one - don't mind if we do),
that c.s.h.hp2848 or c.s.h.programable would be more appropiate.
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 woodhams@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Michael Woodhams) (02/20/91)
A few comments on the proposed split: A number of HP users have commented to the effect "I'm happy with a HP dominated group, if others aren't, let THEM split off." This seems to me to be a quite unreasonable attitude. The effort of unsubscribing to c.s.h and subscribing to the new c.s.h.hp is way less that the effort of sending a posting complaining about the possibility they may have to change groups. If a split is agreed on, having the non-HP crowd leave would lead to a ridiculous group name like c.s.h.non.hp. The logic of the naming system dictates that the HP people split off, not vice versa. It seems to me that a better solution all around would be to create a new group comp.sys.calculators. When I acquired my 48SX, and started hunting for a newsgroup, it didn't even occur to me that c.s.h was where I wanted to be, and I haunted comp.sys.hp for a while until I found a posting pointing me to c.s.h. Had I seen comp.sys.calculators in the list of news groups, I would have immediately known that this was the right group. This also avoids the potential problems if HP brings out a non-calculator handheld. I do think that the non-calculator handheld people have a legitimate complaint about hundreds of postings for the 48SX swamping the group, especially when it is not always obvious from the heading that the posting is about the 48 rather than the Wizard or something. I am in favour of a split. Michael Woodhams.
zlraa@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Ross Alford) (02/20/91)
I'd like to voice my support for the idea of a new group. The most logical thing seems to be to create comp.sys.handhelds.hp or perhaps comp.sys.handhelds.hp2848. The 2848 proposal may be best, as that does allow for the possibility that hp may bring out new machines using a different OS and not compatible with the 28/48 lineage. It is also true that hp may bring out new machines in the 28/48 lineage, and I can already read the arguments that naming a newsgroup for specific machines will cause great problems when/if this occurs. I don't really see the great problem: how many net denizens currently use ibm *pc* machines? Yet, nobody has any problem recognising that comp.binaries.ibm.pc really means comp.binaries.ibm.pc.and.compatible.descendents. I also get the feeling that HP28/48 enthusiasts feel that by being shunted into a subgroup they are somehow being ghettoized. That seems like a very strange reaction, but I suspect it exists. I just see it as logical. While the HP 28/48 are undoubtedly great machines, they *are* a subset of the handheld machines currently available. Making their specialised group a sugroup of the general case group simply follows this logical hierarchy. Nonetheless, if the emotional reaction rules, I'd be perfectly happy to invert the tree and have a comp.sys.handhelds.nothp2848 group. One way or another, I'd just like to be able to look at all the articles, and prune back my kill file for the group. I currently get about 40-50 handhelds articles on an average day, of which about 40 are killed. of the remaining 10 or so, 8-10 are on the HP28/48 anyway, but I'm afraid that enlarging the kill file any more will increase the proportion of articles I'd actually like to read that get zapped. You 28/48 people out there--just think about having to wade through 49 articles on some *fascinating* topic like what happens when the alt and Fn keys are pressed simultaneously while turning on an Atari Portfolio for every article on *your* favourite toy. Have a heart. Just waiting for the vote call, Ross Alford zlraa@marlin.jcu.edu.au (BTW I have no idea what happens when the alt and Fn keys are pressed simultaneously while turning on an Atari Portfolio.) (Probably the machine comes on) -- "The first thing to tell yourself is not to panic. Remember, rather, to keep a calm head, and to heed these words that have helped other wizards, in similar situations to your own, throughout the ages: 'When in doubt, run.'" _The teachings of Ebenezum_ Craig Shaw Gardner
taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) (02/20/91)
Offhand, I don't think a split is going to help anyone. I've been
reading the group for years and there's never been much non-HP traffic.
It's not that anything is done to prevent it.
On the other hand, if the split happens, I don't think it's going to
hurt much either. I'd expect c.s.h to have little traffic (except
cross-posts from c.s.h.hp) and c.s.h.hp to have the same traffic load.
I think the resistance is mostly people feeling that since hp traffic
has kept the group alive all this time, it's pretty cold for a minority
to try and push *us* out.
Overall, my only concern is that if there aren't enough cross-posts to
c.s.h, it might go away and if there are enough to keep it alive, it
will be duplicating c.s.h.hp. For me to vote "yes" on splitting the
group, I'd have to see numbers that show non-hp postings account for
enough volume to sustain a newsgroup. For that matter, since there have
to be 100 more "Yes" votes than "no" votes, I'd be interested to see if
non-hp posters amounted to 100 warm bodies.
--
>>>==>PStJTT
Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD
If I was authorized to speak for my employer, I'd be too important to
waste my time on this crap....schow@bcarh181.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) (02/21/91)
In article <4019@ryn.mro4.dec.com> taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) writes: > >Offhand, I don't think a split is going to help anyone. I've been >reading the group for years and there's never been much non-HP traffic. >It's not that anything is done to prevent it. It would help me. I think I am one of the persistant people who is willing to wade through lots of articles to read the few of interest to me. There is very likely a chicken and egg loop here - new people see this group is dominated by HP stuff, so they leave, so there is very little non-HP stuff posted. > >On the other hand, if the split happens, I don't think it's going to >hurt much either. I'd expect c.s.h to have little traffic (except >cross-posts from c.s.h.hp) and c.s.h.hp to have the same traffic load. >I think the resistance is mostly people feeling that since hp traffic >has kept the group alive all this time, it's pretty cold for a minority >to try and push *us* out. I guess that feeling is there. My concern is that there be a split, the actually names are of little concern to me. But having seen the debates on some group creation/renaming discussion, I am willing to bet that a large number of net.guru will pontificate on the benifits of a consistent netwide naming convention. Surely people are not emotionally attached to the actual name of these groups! The names are merely shorthand for what is discussed in the groups. There is no prestige in being higher or lower in the structure. > >Overall, my only concern is that if there aren't enough cross-posts to >c.s.h, it might go away and if there are enough to keep it alive, it >will be duplicating c.s.h.hp. For me to vote "yes" on splitting the >group, I'd have to see numbers that show non-hp postings account for >enough volume to sustain a newsgroup. For that matter, since there have >to be 100 more "Yes" votes than "no" votes, I'd be interested to see if >non-hp posters amounted to 100 warm bodies. I don't know about "posters", but I think there must be more than 100 "readers". In any case, this is exactly what the vote will determine. Stanley Chow BitNet: schow@BNR.CA BNR UUCP: ..!uunet!bnrgate!bcarh185!schow (613) 763-2831 ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo GARIEPY) (02/26/91)
Greetings,
I am in favour of a new group for the hp48, and I am disappointed by those
who want to ignore the needs of the eclectic minority. Here are my points:
1. The HP48 will soon have more users than many popular workstations and PCs
(notably, those made by HP itself) and deserves its own usenet forum.
2. Whatever handhelds come and go, there will be a significant volume of
HP48 news for several years at least. This is sufficient reason to form
a new group. Let comp.sys.handhelds handle the machines that come and go.
3. When a news group gets as big as c.s.h there are a lot of noise postings
(such as the current thread) to which non-interested readers should not
have to be subjected.
4. Discussion of other handhelds (including the HP28) has been substantially
choked off by the ridiculous volume in c.s.h. What would you think of a
society that granted the right to free speech, but insisted that all groups
must assemble in the same room at the same time.
5. How would you feel if c.s.h postings were totally overwhelmed by a new
pen-based handheld with ten times the speed, ten times the memory, ten
times the capability, at ten times the cost, with ten times the number
of users and ten times the usenet traffic of the HP48? This is a good
analogy to what has already happened to c.s.h and not that hypothetical.
6. The issue of splitting of a new HP48 group will and should only be
resolved by a vote. The sooner the vote, the sooner we can stop the
discussion. My recommendation would be to vote on the establishment
of a new group called comp.sys.hp48.
I am willing to live with a lot of redundant blather and bickering in
order to read the 10% or so of the postings that I find interesting, but
I am very sympathetic to those readers who, because they are not interested
in the HP48, face a signal to noise ratio of less than 1%. Please join me
by getting out of these people's hair and reducing the blather.
Alonzo Gariepy // The opinions expressed are mine and
alonzo@microsoft // not those of Microsoft Corporation.fledley@condor.mbir.bcm.tmc.edu (Fred Ledley) (02/27/91)
In article <70889@microsoft.UUCP>, alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo GARIEPY) writes: |>.... |> I am willing to live with a lot of redundant blather and bickering in |> order to read the 10% or so of the postings that I find interesting, but |> I am very sympathetic to those readers who, because they are not interested |> in the HP48, face a signal to noise ratio of less than 1%. Please join me |> by getting out of these people's hair and reducing the blather. I agree. Comp.sys.hp48 looks like a very good suggestion to me. I will still read both groups, since I am interested in other handhelds beside my HP48, but I think the new arrangement would benefit all the users of this group. It gives us a forum for HP48 discussions, while leaving a general group for discussion of other handhelds. If we do consent to the split, we should be sure and leave frequent pointers (in the F.A.Q, perhaps) to the new group. |> |> Alonzo Gariepy // The opinions expressed are mine and |> alonzo@microsoft // not those of Microsoft Corporation. ------------------------+----------------------------+------------------------- ___ | R. Mark Adams | On cars: "...if such a / / | Baylor College of Medicine |thing did exist, it would / /_____ ______ | Department of Cell Biology |certainly be called an / __ / / __ / | |'isomobile' or an / / / / / /_/ / | fledley@mbir.bcm.tmc.edu |'autokinesin'. Never mix /__/ /__/ / ___/ | |Greek and Latin." / / | "Molecular Biologist in | /__/ | Training..." | -Goethe ------------------------+----------------------------+-------------------------
kaufman@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) (02/27/91)
In article <70889@microsoft.UUCP> alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo GARIEPY) writes: >6. The issue of splitting of a new HP48 group will and should only be > resolved by a vote. The sooner the vote, the sooner we can stop the > discussion. My recommendation would be to vote on the establishment > of a new group called comp.sys.hp48. I second this. I would object to (and vote no to) a new group called comp.sys.hp because it would cause a lot of non-48 people to suffer. On the other hand, comp.sys.hp48 (or comp.sys.hp2848) seems to me to be a very good idea. 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
ajf@maximo.enet.dec.com (Adam J Felson) (02/27/91)
In article <16890@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kaufman@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes: :: ::In article <70889@microsoft.UUCP> alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo GARIEPY) writes: ::>6. The issue of splitting of a new HP48 group will and should only be ::> resolved by a vote. The sooner the vote, the sooner we can stop the ::> discussion. My recommendation would be to vote on the establishment ::> of a new group called comp.sys.hp48. :: ::I second this. I would object to (and vote no to) a new group called ::comp.sys.hp because it would cause a lot of non-48 people to suffer. On the ::other hand, comp.sys.hp48 (or comp.sys.hp2848) seems to me to be a very good ::idea. :: ::Michael :: Actually how about comp.sys.handhelds.hp? __a__d__a__m__
kaufman@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) (02/27/91)
In article <1991Feb26.210735@maximo.enet.dec.com> ajf@maximo.enet.dec.com (Adam J Felson) writes: >Actually how about comp.sys.handhelds.hp? The problem with this is that it makes trouble (or dosen't fix the trouble) for the people who own HP handehelds other then the 28 and 48. Why should someone with a Jaguar (when they come out) or a hp12 (for example) have to go through the trouble of reading all the 48 posts. If we are going to split, we should split based on the problem we are trying to solve. The problem is, too many hp48 posts, not too many hp handheld posts. Note: I actualy only really care about the 48 posts, so I am using the term "problem: very losely. 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
IUGC500@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU (David Holland IUGC500@INDYVAX) (02/27/91)
That's my major worry about the whole idea of the split.. What happens to the gateway?????? As for cross posting to the HP28/48 mailing list, I'm on it also and I get a grand total of (maybe) one message every two weeks. So there's nothing in the way of cross posting going on there.. I personally would MUCH rather be on this group than the bitnet one. So as far as the split, I'd support it if the gateway would let me be on the new 48 group. David Holland IUGC500@INDYVAX (BITNET) IUGC500@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU (INTERNET)
dan@nic.gac.edu (Dan Boehlke) (02/28/91)
If the comp.sys.handhelds group splits, does anyone have any opinions on what should happen with the handhelds mailing list. Tom Huber and I run the current gateway. We took it over from SRI. I have not yet asked Tom, but since he is a 48sx user I suspect that his interests would take the handhelds mailing list with the 48sx messages. A complication is that there is already a HP28/48 mailing list provided by the BITNET LISTSERV system. As far as I know it is not gatewayed to USENET, and I am not equiped to provide a gateway to that mailing-list, I also do not know who runs that list, or how much crossposting takes place. The handhelds mailing list has a different mission than the HP28/48 mailing list provided by the LISTSERVs. Another HP mailing list would be a duplication. There are currently 120 subscribers to the handhelds mailing list, a few of the subscribers are gateways to BBS systems, and internal Corporate news and BBS systems. I am hoping to rewrite the software I am using to impliment the gateway. Right now it works, but it sends through an extra header. I hope to strip out most of the second header. I am learning more about my mailer. Please post your opinions, or feel free to send them to me. -- Dan Boehlke Internet: dan@gac.edu Campus Network Manager BITNET: dan@gacvax1.bitnet Gustavus Adolphus College St. Peter, MN 56082 USA Phone: (507)933-7596
rrd@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ray Depew) (02/28/91)
I, too, think that comp.sys.hp48 is a good idea -- the best alternative that anyone has yet come up with. I could support splitting this group into comp.sys.handhelds and comp.sys.hp48. Net.purists will be able to find plenty of things wrong with such a name, but it's short, logical and effective. -- Ray
rob@ireta.cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Rob Prior) (02/28/91)
kaufman@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes: > >6. The issue of splitting of a new HP48 group will and should only be > > resolved by a vote. The sooner the vote, the sooner we can stop the > > discussion. My recommendation would be to vote on the establishment > > of a new group called comp.sys.hp48. > I second this. I would object to (and vote no to) a new group called > comp.sys.hp because it would cause a lot of non-48 people to suffer. On the > other hand, comp.sys.hp48 (or comp.sys.hp2848) seems to me to be a very good > idea. Unfortunately, a group named comp.sys.hp48 (or .hp2848) is restrictive to future calculator types. A group named comp.sys.hp or comp.sys.handhelds.hp would be much more appropriate. +------------ | rob@ireta.cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | Rob Prior, President, Still Animation Logo Design +------------------------------------------------------------
rob@ireta.cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Rob Prior) (02/28/91)
kaufman@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes: > The problem with this is that it makes trouble (or dosen't fix the trouble) f > the people who own HP handehelds other then the 28 and 48. Why should someon > with a Jaguar (when they come out) or a hp12 (for example) have to go through > the trouble of reading all the 48 posts. If we are going to split, we should > split based on the problem we are trying to solve. The problem is, too many > hp48 posts, not too many hp handheld posts. Don't forget, the majority of posts here were hp28, then when the 48 came out, the posts all became hp48 related. When Jaguar is released, the change might be as obvious. I've also neglected the 'hp28s for sale' thread, which was quite volumnous in itself... :) +------------ | rob@ireta.cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | Rob Prior, President, Still Animation Logo Design +------------------------------------------------------------
garye@microsoft.UUCP (Gary ERICSON) (03/01/91)
In article <16892@accuvax.nwu.edu> kaufman@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes: >In article <1991Feb26.210735@maximo.enet.dec.com> ajf@maximo.enet.dec.com (Adam J Felson) writes: >>Actually how about comp.sys.handhelds.hp? > >If we are going to split, we should >split based on the problem we are trying to solve. The problem is, too many >hp48 posts, not too many hp handheld posts. I agree wholeheartedly. Please don't lump all of HP's products together. Gary Ericson - Microsoft - Work Group Apps
flinton@eagle.wesleyan.edu (03/01/91)
In article <16890@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kaufman@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes: > ... I would object to (and vote no to) a new group called > comp.sys.hp because ... Remember, there already _is_ a group called comp.sys.hp. You _can't_ have two! But, as regards "comp.sys.hp48", do you really want the name to suggest that hp28 or 55 or 35 or 110 users shouldn't bother looking here? (OK, the HP110 is a stretch for handhelds, but I have one and ... ) Maybe comp.sys.hh.hp ? > Michael Kaufman > kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu -- Fred <flinton@eagle.Wesleyan.EDU> [BTW, thanks to everett@hpcvra and tt@euler.jyu.fi for HP110 feedback; expect e-mail from me towards 3/25/91]
alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo GARIEPY) (03/01/91)
In <9102270829.AA09759@nic.gac.edu> dan@nic.gac.edu (Dan Boehlke) writes: > If the comp.sys.handhelds group splits, does anyone have any opinions on what > should happen with the handhelds mailing list. I see this is as the biggest issue surrounding the proposed split. It is hard to know what is on the other end of these mailing lists, and it would be a shame to deprive anybody because someone on their path failed to pick up the other half of the split group. It is unreasonable for handhelds (the group or the list) to carry the wide range of hp48 topics it does now. General queries about the product, product information, and comparisons would still have their place in handhelds. All I can see is that a completely new mailing list would have to be created for the new hp48 group. I am kind of glad that the existing hp48 mailing list is not gatewayed; I unsubscribed when the noise level got even higher than that on c.s.h. I am interested to know if anyone wants the new hp48 group to be moderated or is interested in moderating. Or perhaps more of our readers could learn something about net etiquette. ... I thought not. Alonzo
spell@thebeach.UUCP (chris spell) (03/03/91)
In <8y82X1w163w@ireta.cynic.wimsey.bc.ca> rob@ireta.cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Rob Prior) writes: >kaufman@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes: >> >6. The issue of slitting of a new HP48 group will and should only be >> > resolved by a vote. The sooner the vote, the sooner we can stop the >> > discussion. My recommendation would be to vote on the establishment >> > of a new group called comp.sys.hp48. >> I second this. I would object to (and vote no to) a new group called >> comp.sys.hp because it would cause a lot of non-48 people to suffer. On the >> other hand, comp.sys.hp48 (or comp.sys.hp2848) seems to me to be a very good >> idea. >Unfortunately, a group named comp.sys.hp48 (or .hp2848) is restrictive to >future calculator types. A group named comp.sys.hp or comp.sys.handhelds.hp >would be much more appropriate. This is true, but this is not the point for having comp.sys.hp48. The hp48sx has enough posting to have it's *own* newsgroup by itself. I don't think the group needs to be called comp.sys.hp2848 because there are not that many 28s postings lately and they can be posted to comp.sys.hp48 and/or comp.sys.handhelds. If some other hp calculator comes along and invades comp.sys.handhelds then it can go through this process and get its own newsgroup as the 48sx has. If it is a successor of the 48sx then the group could be renamed or a new one created to accommodate the calculator, but no doubt it will take over the 48sx newsgroup until that happens. I will vote no to just about anything other than comp.sys.hp48. chris -- ___________________________________________________________________ | spell@[ thebeach.uucp | uncw.uucp | ecsvax.uncecs.edu ] | | {...,gatech,rutgers,decvax}!mcnc!ecsvax!uncw!thebeach!spell | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
spell@thebeach.UUCP (chris spell) (03/03/91)
In <N482X2w163w@ireta.cynic.wimsey.bc.ca> rob@ireta.cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Rob Prior) writes: >> The problem with this is that it makes trouble (or dosen't fix the trouble) f >> the people who own HP handehelds other then the 28 and 48. Why should someon >> with a Jaguar (when they come out) or a hp12 (for example) have to go through >> the trouble of reading all the 48 posts. If we are going to split, we should >> split based on the problem we are trying to solve. The problem is, too many >> hp48 posts, not too many hp handheld posts. >Don't forget, the majority of posts here were hp28, then when the 48 came out, >the posts all became hp48 related. When Jaguar is released, the change might >be as obvious. Yes, but the 28s has been more or less replaced by the 48sx. I don't think the Jaguar is going to replace the 48sx. And if it gets to overwhelm comp.sys.handhelds then it will be time for you to split that off to comp.sys.jaguar. As I said before the hp48sx has enough traffic to merrit its own newsgroup comp.sys.hp48. chris -- ___________________________________________________________________ | spell@[ thebeach.uucp | uncw.uucp | ecsvax.uncecs.edu ] | | {...,gatech,rutgers,decvax}!mcnc!ecsvax!uncw!thebeach!spell | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
spell@thebeach.UUCP (chris spell) (03/03/91)
In <1991Feb28.195242.39518@eagle.wesleyan.edu> flinton@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: >But, as regards "comp.sys.hp48", do you really want the name to suggest that >hp28 or 55 or 35 or 110 users shouldn't bother looking here? (OK, the HP110 >is a stretch for handhelds, but I have one and ... ) Maybe comp.sys.hh.hp ? Yes! There are not that many postings for these machines and they can go where they originally were comp.sys.handhelds. I doubt that many people will stop reading comp.sys.handhedls just because they are now reading all the hp48sx stuff in comp.sys.hp48. I sure won't because there won't be that much posted to comp.sys.handhelds after the 48sx stuff is gone. **The hp48sx has enough posted to it to merrit its own newsgroup.** And i'm sure that the people wanting to read only stuff about the hp28, 55, or 25 etc. will not want to wade through all the hp48sx postings just to read the articles they are interested in when they could find what they were looking for much faster in comp.sys.handhelds. chris -- ___________________________________________________________________ | spell@[ thebeach.uucp | uncw.uucp | ecsvax.uncecs.edu ] | | {...,gatech,rutgers,decvax}!mcnc!ecsvax!uncw!thebeach!spell | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
NORM%IONAACAD.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Norman Walsh) (03/04/91)
In regards to the new group, since I have access to c.s.h *only* through
the Bitnet gateway, I would like to see both lists gatewayed (I really
will read both, honest). If it can only be one or the other, I'd like
to see c.s.h.hp48 (or whatever it gets called) gatewayed. For my $0.02,
I'd rather *not* see it moderated.
ndwtaber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) (03/04/91)
In article <708@thebeach.UUCP>, spell@thebeach.UUCP (chris spell) writes: |>In <1991Feb28.195242.39518@eagle.wesleyan.edu> |>flinton@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: |> |> |>>But, as regards "comp.sys.hp48", do you really want the name to |>suggest that |>>hp28 or 55 or 35 or 110 users shouldn't bother looking here? (OK, |>the HP110 |>>is a stretch for handhelds, but I have one and ... ) Maybe |>comp.sys.hh.hp ? |> |>Yes! There are not that many postings for these machines and they |>can |>go where they originally were comp.sys.handhelds. I doubt that many |>people will stop reading comp.sys.handhedls just because they are now |>reading all the hp48sx stuff in comp.sys.hp48. I sure won't because |>there won't be that much posted to comp.sys.handhelds after the 48sx |>stuff is gone. **The hp48sx has enough posted to it to merrit its |>own |>newsgroup.** Don't bet the farm. My experience with split groups is that when a split happens, posts to the new group end up cross-posted to the old group on the basis of shared interest. The reasoning is "well, this is written for the 48, but it wouldn't take much to make it work on <some other machine>, and those users read c.s.h, so I'll post it there too." So I'd be willing to bet that about 50% of c.s.h.hp48 would end up in c.s.h. I don't know that it would be a bad thing, because at least that would be enough traffic to keep the group alive. The next question is -- what happens when the 48 goes the way of the 28? When I first tuned into c.s.h it was dominated by the HP41. Then the 28C came out and THAT dominated the group. Then the 28S came out and THAT dominated the group and now there's a 48 which dominates the group. So why should the 48 have to take the heat? What will happen when the 58 comes out? (no -- I picked the number out of thin air.) The net.police in c.s.h.hp48 won't let it be there, so it will come home to c.s.h. Then we'll have another call for a split. My feeling is that the group is for handhelds. The HP48 is a handheld. Making a group specific to the 48 ignores history -- that the 48 posts will die down with a frightening suddenness when the next super machine comes along. And making a group that is general enough to handle the case of model changes would require a general name. Like maybe "comp.sys.handhelds"?? The other thing that I question is the assertion sometimes made that the number of HP related postings is keeping shy owners of other brands from posting the reams of code they have developed. Is getting the HP traffic off c.s.h enough? Wouldn't such shy developers be afraid to post their Wizard code because of all the Boss code that would flood the emancipated group? Wouldn't it be better, more nurturing and less scary if we made comp.sys.handhelds.boss and comp.sys.handhelds.wizard? Let's count the machines that think they're shouldered off the sidewalk by the HP thugs... I'll bet they can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. Let's make new groups for them. I doubt they'll have follow-on products and then they won't have to worry about being pushed aside by prolific postings from other users. - >>>==>PStJTT Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD If I was authorized to speak for my employer, I'd be too important to waste my time on this crap....
taber@ultnix.enetcom (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) (03/06/91)
taber@ultnix.enetcom (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) Organization: KC1TD@KB4N.NH.USA.NA.EARTH.SOLAR_SYSTEM.UNIVERSE.MIND_OF_GOD.01463 Lines: 66 In article <708@thebeach.UUCP>, spell@thebeach.UUCP (chris spell) writes: |>In <1991Feb28.195242.39518@eagle.wesleyan.edu> |>flinton@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: |> |> |>>But, as regards "c|>suggest that |>>hp28 or 55 or 35 or 110 users shouldn't bother looking here? (OK, |>the HP110 |>>is a stretch for handhelds, but I have one and ... ) Maybe |>comp.sys.hh.hp ? |> |>Yes! There are not that many postings for these machines and they |>can |>go where t|>people will stop reading c|>reading all the hp48sx stuff in comp.sys.hp48. I sure won't because |>there won't be that much posted to comp.sys.handhelds after the 48sx |>stuff is gone. **The hp48sx has enough posted to it to merrit its |>own |> Don't bsplit happens, posts to the new group end up cross-posted to the old group on the basis of shared interest. The reasoning is "well, this is written for the 48, but it wouldn't take much to make it work on <some other machine>, and those users read c.s.h, so I'll post it there too." c.s.h. I don't know that it would be a bad thing, because at least that would be enough traffic to k The next question is -- what happens when the 48 goes the way of the 28? When I first tuned into c.s.h it was dominated by the HP41. Then the 28C came out and THAT dominated the group. Then the 28S THAT dominated the group and now there's a 48 which dominates the group. So why should the 48 have to take the heat? What will happen when the 58 comes out? (no -- I picked the number out of thin air.) The net.police in c.s.h.hp48 won't let it be there, so it will come home to c.s.h. Then we'll have another call for a split. My feeling is that the group is for handhelds. The HP48 is a handheld. Making a group specific to the 48 ignores history -- that the 48 posts will die down with a frightening suddenness when the next super machine comes along. And making a group that is general enough to hacase of model changes would require a general name. Like maybe "comp.sys.handhelds"?? The other thing that I question is the assertion sometimes made that the number of HP related postings is keeping shy owners of other brands from posting the reams of code they have developed. Is getting the HP traffic off c.s.h enough? Wouldn't such shy developers be afraid to post their Wizard code because of all the Boss code that would flood the emancipated group? Wouldn't it be if we made comp.sys.handhelds.boss and ccount the machines that think they're shouldered off the sidewalk by the HP thugs... I'll bet they can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. Letpostings from other users. - >>>==>PStJTT Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD If I was authorized to speak for my employewaste my time on this crap.... #! rnews 1047From: zavgren@doowap.Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
mdm@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Marc de Montigny (PFE M. Bernard)) (03/07/91)
My vote for : comp.sys.handhelds.hp
umapd51@cc.ic.ac.uk (W.A.C. Mier-Jedrzejowicz) (03/08/91)
If we create a new group I suggest we call it comp.sys.handhelds.rpl. Why?
1. The name "rpl" covers the HP28, the HP48, and any similar new models.
"rpl" is the name used for the user language and the operating system,
so it would describe the group without restricting the topics. HP
advertising for the HP48 describes it as a new standard for the next
century - even allowing for advertising hype this suggests that HP do
plan to continue providing rpl handhelds for a considerable time.
(Lest anyone ask, "rpl" is generally accepted to stand for "reverse
polish lisp" - an amalgam of "reverse polish notation" as used on other
HP calculators and of features of the Lisp programming language.)
2. It is clear that there will be overlap between comp.sys.handhelds and
a new group if one is created, whatever its name. At the least, many
new or potential HP48 users will come to comp.sys.handhelds (or c.s.hp)
first. They will ask questions including "should I buy one?", which are
best answered in a general comp.sys.handhelds area. They will not even
know the name "rpl" since it is not in the manuals. At about the time
such new users get to recognize the name "rpl" they will also be ready
to move to the more specialized area.
3. Some HP28 users object to the idea of moving to a new group with the
HP48 users. They may have to decide among themselves whether to move
to the new group if one is formed, but (as an HP28 user myself) I think
it more logical they join the new group, and the name "rpl" would make
it clear the group is for them too. Users of other HP handhelds such as
the HP41 or any new DOS handheld should stay in c.s.h. - until and unless
other new areas split off for them - most of their questions will not
overlap with an "rpl" area.
4. I suspect many HP48 owners will read both groups, but a sensible split
WILL help encourage users of other handhelds to use c.s.h. more. The scope
is wider than most people have suggested - Casio BOSSes, Sharp Wizards,
HP and TI pocket computers, HP, TI, Casio and Sharp advanced calculators,
Psion Organizers, the Agenda, the Atari/DIP Portfolio including new models,
and the Poqet including new models too just for starters. I am surprised
that the CMT MCII and CMT MCV have hardly been mentioned here - they are
roughly the same size as the HP48, though thicker, with a very MS DOS-like
operating system. RAM, ROM, and the operating system chip as well, can all
be plugged in at the back. Does anyone have anything to write about them?
Regards, Wlodek Mier-Jedrzejowicz, Space & Atmospheric Physics,
Imperial College, Londoncook@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Steve Cook) (03/12/91)
I vote for comp.sys.handhelds.hp
jcohen@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU (Josh Cohen [890918]) (03/14/91)
how about comp.sys.hp.48 or comp.sys.hp48 other hp's can stay in c.s.h. they are currently low volume postings other computers do the same thing such as: comp.sys.atari.st comp.sys.atari.8bit, etc