Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!duteca2!linden
From: linden@duteca (J.Th.van der Linden)
Newsgroups: comp.lsi
Subject: Re: Call For Discussion: Comp.lsi.CAT
Keywords: comp.lsi.cat
Message-ID: <1276@duteca2.UUCP>
Date: 4 Apr 91 08:30:20 GMT
References: <veit.669557680@du9ds3> <3185@inews.intel.com> <1991Mar26.205904.1346@sapphire.idbsu.edu>
Reply-To: linden@duteca2.UUCP (J.Th. van der Linden)
Followup-To: comp.lsi
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dep. of Electrotechnical engineering.
Lines: 11

In article <1991Mar26.205904.1346@sapphire.idbsu.edu> horne@sapphire.idbsu.edu (cs354- Broward Horne) writes:
>   I agree.   ATE is the accepted industry standard. By all means, use 
>                ' comp.lsi.ate ' 

I disagree, I perceive ATE as Automatic Test Equipment, as do many others. 
By no means use "comp.lsi.ate". I tend to dislike the name "comp.lsi.cat", 
and would prefer "comp.lsi.testing".  That combination really can't give 
too much rise to incidental test-contributions of a different kind:-). BTW 
I'd welcome the new specialized newsgroup.

van der Linden