Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!versatc!mips!mash From: mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Criteria ... [really: should comp.arch be split] Message-ID: <19182@winchester.mips.COM> Date: 10 May 89 19:59:32 GMT References: <2368@ogccse.ogc.edu> <1464@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> <141@dg.dg.com> <156@dg.dg.com> <658@pitstop.West.Sun.COM> <19088@winchester.mips.COM> <18154@cup.portal.com> Reply-To: mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, CA Lines: 56 In article <18154@cup.portal.com> bcase@cup.portal.com (Brian bcase Case) writes: >If John Mashey can post 300+ lines of marketing counter-measures, then I can >post a few lines about my OPINIONS too. >I think these discussions are very interesting, after all, I did read all >of John's posting, but they are nearly completely inappropriate for comp.arch, >IN MY OPINION. Even the note that precipitated John's note was dicey. Well Brian is probably right on this [and I wouldn't have been as long, except I'd just been reading a Cypress brochure that claimed SPARC had "thousands of times more lines of code than all other RISCs put together." among other things that stirred me up.] Maybe it's time for another newsgroup. On looking back on the last few years, I observe that there are at least 3 distinct kinds of discussion: a) Pure architectural questions, opinions, information b) Performance analyses c) Economic and/or industry-structure discussions; competitive arguments over non-architecture issues. What happens is that a discussion starts under a), and then sometimes spins off onto b) or c). Sometimes it starts under c) ["whose computer or way of doing things is better, and why?"] and then either degenerates into name-calling or else somebody throws a lot of DATA at it and that's the end. [Of course, I realize that much of the net awaits such discussions with glee, since light is occasionally generated along with the heat, and since, as far as I can tell, there's no other architecture-newsgroup that has a readership that isn't skewed towards some particular architecture.] For example, this whole sequence started with somebody asking for some objective criteria, a few of us responding with some, and then (over the last week) going MARKETING-OPINION-crazy. Either of the following could be OK: a) Split most of c) off to another newsgroup, allowing an interesting discussion that's getty away from architecture to have a place to go. b) Keep it as is, but urge everybody to avoid repeating OPINIONS that came straight from market-hype literature unless they can supply FACTs to support them. [because, of course, those of us who feel compelled to shoot missiles at such things will still do it, even if we try to keep them shorter. Personally, I have a lot of other things to do, so I'd be happy not to feel compelled to challenge as many such things. non-discussions like: OPINION, OPINION How about some data? OPINION, OPINION, AGAIN Really, how about some real data? OPINION, OPINION, DATA IS ELSEWHERE Please, how about some real data? really get wearisome.] Comments? -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: UUCP: {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash OR mash@mips.com DDD: 408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086