Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!philmtl!philabs!mkr
From: mkr@philabs.philips.com (Michael K. Reed)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ti.explorer
Subject: This group, other lispms
Message-ID: <65619@philabs.Philips.Com>
Date: 16 Oct 89 21:00:26 GMT
Sender: news@philabs.Philips.Com
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lines: 34


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)