mkr@philabs.philips.com (Michael K. Reed) (10/17/89)
My question is "why is there a comp.sys.ti.explorer, when there is no comp.sys.lispm". This group uses very little bandwidth, so saying that "there are so many people who wish to discuss Explorers" is not a valid arg. I feel that if we included other lispms in this discussion, we might all benefit. The similarities between the currently (and even the formerly) available machines, i.e. Symbolics and TI, would outweigh the differences. I don't feel there is enough interest for a comp.sys.symbolics (just as I didn't think there would be enough interest for a comp.sys.ti.explorer), but I feel that together there would be a "critical mass" for synergy. Of course, it could just degenerate into a "My xyz GC's faster than your abc" jihad. I don't know if newsgroups can be renamed, or how this takes place, etc. I do know that if I propose the creation of comp.sys.symbolics, it will pass (just as comp.sys.ti.explorer did), but will not have continued discussions (as comp.sys.ti .explorer doesn't). So I will refrain from proposing it. I'm just asking if there is interest in a more general group, with the benefits of larger/wider readership, more continued discussion, etc. Let me know. Please, no "How DARE you discuss THOSE machines in a group for OUR machines" flames. I'm just seeing if some other people feel as I do, and if so, what might be done. Michael (mkr@philabs)
snicoud@ATC.BOEING.COM (Stephen Nicoud) (10/17/89)
Here's my 2 cents worth. A comp.sys.symbolics would probably have quite a bit more traffic because the SLUG (Symbolics Lisp Users Group) <slug@ai.sri.com> is very active (much more so than the comparable TI list <info-ti-explorer@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>) (assuming, of course that slug is fed to comp.sys.symbolics). I easily get half a dozen or more messages a day from SLUG. I'd say info-ti-explorer averages one or two a week. [Is that about right, Rich?] I guess I see the feed of info-ti-explorer to USENET as a way of expanding the audience of readers (and contributors). Mailing lists are not always well advertised (I worked at TI for 2 years before I heard of this list). Whereas, newsgroups announce themselves at creation, and for new users are immediately available. Your state a valid concern, though. I, too, am disappointed at the total traffic on info-ti-explorer, but it does provide a source for getting explorer-related questions answered. IMHO, most of the discussions that take place on info-ti-explorer and slug primarily concern themselves with the platform in question, and are not of general interest to the other group. Whenever I have a question that could be of interest to both groups, I post it to both. Another thing to consider is that often, source code is thrown around on these two lists. Because of the copyrighted nature of most of the source (by TI and Symbolics), a combined group would probably lead to more inadvertant use of copyrighted source on the wrong platform. -- Steve <snicoud@atc.boeing.com>
miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (Brad Miller) (10/17/89)
Date: 16 Oct 89 21:00:26 GMT
From: philmtl!philabs!mkr@uunet.uu.net (Michael K. Reed)
Let me know. Please, no "How DARE you discuss THOSE machines
in a group for OUR machines" flames. I'm just seeing if some
other people feel as I do, and if so, what might be done.
I'm not directly opposed to such a thing, but I will note the reason for the
lack of existance of a comp.sys.symbolics is because of the existance of the
SLUG mailing list. (SLUG = Symbolics Lisp User's Group)
To get on it, send mail to SLUG-REQUEST@AI.SRI.COM
Also note that the majority of what is discussed on both lists has to do
with available software, configurations, etc. and therefore there really IS
very little overlap, 80% of the time. I therefore see no compelling reason
to merge groups...welch@aristotle.cis.ohio-state.edu (Arun Welch) (10/17/89)
>My question is "why is there a comp.sys.ti.explorer, when >there is no comp.sys.lispm". This group uses very little >bandwidth, so saying that "there are so many people who >wish to discuss Explorers" is not a valid arg. I feel >that if we included other lispms in this discussion, we >might all benefit. I tried to host a generalised-lispm mailing list once upon a time, when there were even more vendors on the market, and the general purpose workstations were just entering the market. The list never expanded beyond 15 entries, and died of starvation shortly after. My guess is that lispm users have religiously-held beliefs, and are loath to discuss those beliefs in the presence of the infidels :-). There are mailing lists/newsgroups for all the major vendors, and inter-vendor discussion generally consists of messages of the sort "I'm so glad I'm on machine xyz again, I had to suffer on machine zyx for 6 months, and it was painful." on the respective lists. ...arun