Xref: utzoo comp.sys.handhelds:7607 news.groups:31755 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!rex!vax.anes.tulane.edu!MANDEL From: mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds,news.groups Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.handhelds.hp48 and comp.sources.hp48 moderated Message-ID: <7387@rex.cs.tulane.edu> Date: 8 May 91 15:06:19 GMT References: <4723@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Sender: news@rex.cs.tulane.edu Reply-To: mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu Organization: Tulane University School of Medicine Lines: 124 In article <4723@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) writes: > >How pleasant -- another discussion. > Trust me, if we could have avoided it, we would have. >Since it's a call for discussion, it seems that ideas to create other >groups should be considered proper. In specific, now that we've had a >chance to see that the HP95 has at least equal potential to "dominate >comp.sys.handhelds" it would seem that a little more forethought should >be given to the naming scheme. If the traffic for HP95 warrants it, I imagine that it might be possible to do so, but as it has only been around a few days, probably best to wait until the user community is well defined before dealing with that group. As to forethought, you will recall that I started this calling for comp.sys.handhelds.hp, and was convinced that .hp48 was the viable solution by discussion within the group. >It is short-sighted and foolish to create a whole new group for a single >model of a single manufacturer's calculator. First, I believe there are those who would take exception to your demeaning the HP48 as just a calculator. Some of us began programming on machines with less memory and speed than the 48, and which filled a small room. Second, we have no problem with multiple groups for other single machines from a single manufacturer, such as the Macintosh, Amiga, etc. If we were talking about building a new wing of the Library of Congress for books on the HP48, that might be "short-sighted and stupid", but it's just an administrative grouping, and if it doesn't stand the test of history, little harm is done. > >Fortunately the net.gods have sent the original idea back for >reconsideration. I DON'T FAVOR ANY SPLIT AT ALL, but if there's going to >be one, how about doing it in a rational manner? > First, the net.gods major concern was the administration of the vote, and only secondarily the namespace issue. The group mandate is something they are comfortable with the mortals working out. Second, please be honest. When you say "a rational manner", what you really mean is "The Patrick Taber Solution". If there had been a groundswell of support for your position in the last discussion, I would have incorporated your views, but I just didn't see it. I encourage anyone out there to respond on this (preferrably by news, cross-posted to news.groups), as I really want to be fair about this. >This statement of "history and motivation" is pure opinion. There is >nothing to show that any discussion was "squeezed out" by the HP48. >However unfactual the statement may be, the people who make it (over and >over and over) really believe it and I am sure they are acting out of >good faith. IN THEIR OWN INTEREST, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THAT >SINGLING OUT A PARTICULAR MODEL OF CALCULATOR DOESN'T SOLVE THE >PROBLEM. If you wish to characterize this as opinion, that is certainly fair. We did no physical measurements, merely incorporated the views of those who mailed and posted on the subject. My opinion is that, as a person interested in the Sharp OZ-8200, it was unlikely that other users of that machine would persist in subscribing to a group so dominated by the HP48. Thus, while I have occaisonally posted on the subject, I fear that my postings are largely unread, as the HP48 users don't know the answer to my questions, and the Sharp users probably don't persist. To date, I have only detected 4-5 Sharp users in the group, so it would be pointless for us to try to form a group, but if there comes a time when there are 50 of us, I trust we can count on your vote. The point is, the only machine which is clearly ready for its own group is the HP48. > >I made this suggestion during the last discussion period, but it didn't >get much discussion. I make it again, because now we've had a chance to >see how short-term a short-term solution can be. I suggest one umbrella >group followed by specialized groups sorted by manufacturer. The >umbrella group can be used for announcements and comments general to all >users, the sub-groups will let the people who use particular machines to >have a place where they won't have the annoying squeezing out of >worthwhile discussion which is alleged to be happening now. > >comp.sys.handhelds >comp.sys.handhelds.hp (for *all* HP models) >comp.sys.handhelds.casio >comp.sys.handhelds.ti >comp.sys.handhelds. > Again, you have missed the point. In the last discussion, I explicitly asked the question of the HP28 users "Do you want to be in the HP48 group?" The answer was no. This is not based on personal grooming, it merely reflects the fact that most of what the HP48 community discusses is of little interest to HP28 users (If I mispresent anyones views, I apologize). Having just finished the reading Byte article on the HP95, I believe that there will be about as much commonality of interest between HP95 users and HP48 users as between Apple IIgs users and Mac users. As to creating .casio, .ti, etc., I believe the net.gods would have a fit about creating new groups to serve communities which have not yet manifest their presence. Trust me, when any or those communities form, I will be more than happy to work for the creation of their own groups, but it hasn't happened yet. > >We've seen how much effort it takes to do a split at all. Why not do it >in such a way that it doesn't have to be done again when the >HP comes out? You are correct that it takes a lot of effort to do a split. The last one was enough to make me stay in town for the first day of my vacation (I know, the sobbing is almost uncontrollable). The process is one of evolution, and we should not expect that we can create a solution for the ages on any given day. I know there are many opinions out there, including a number who feel c.s.h should be one big group, but face it, 75% of the people who voted last time supported the proposal as written, and a number of those who opposed it did it only because of namespace issues. We believe that the new proposal is an improvement over the last one (in that it won't be vetoed by the Usenet administration). We believe that we understand what the will of the group is on this, but are willing to listen to your suggestions. I do not think that there is sufficient sentiment out there to warrant a wholesale rewrite of the proposal, or to make the split go away, so again, I implore everyone to try to make useful suggestions to strengthen the porposal, and we will do what we can to address your concerns. Jeff E Mandel MD MS Asst. Professor of Anesthesiology Tulane University School of Medicine New Orleans, LA mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu