RFD: comp.sys.powerpc reorganisation [repost]

RFD: comp.sys.powerpc reorganisation [repost]

Post by The Arch-Devia » Wed, 16 Aug 1995 04:00:00



[Note that this RFD was originally posted on 25-Jul-95. However, this repost
includes the following groups which were missed in the initial post:

  comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc
  comp.unix.aix
  comp.unix.solaris

A followup article will be posted explaining the current state of the proposal]

                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

             unmoderated group comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy
            unmoderated group comp.sys.powerpc.asm-level
   unmoderated group comp.sys.powerpc.misc (replaces comp.sys.powerpc)
         unmoderated group comp.sys.powerpc.system-design



PROCEDURE

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) on the reorganisation of
the unmoderated newsgroup comp.sys.powerpc (referred to as c.s.p for
brevity).

This message initiates a discussion period to consider the decomposition
of comp.sys.powerpc into four new unmoderated groups. Discussion will
take place on news.groups. If discussions are made in other newsgroups,
they should always be cross-posted to news.groups.

     *** This is NOT a call for votes ***

Please do not attempt to vote now. Barring significant disagreement, a
call for votes (CFV) will be issued approximately four weeks after this
RFD. When the CFV is posted, there will be instructions on how to mail
your votes to the independent vote counter.

This RFD is in accordance with the Guidelines for Newsgroups Creation,
and has been cross-posted to the following relevant newsgroups:

news.announce.newsgroups
news.groups
comp.arch
comp.os.linux.advocacy
comp.os.os2.advocacy
comp.sys.m68k
comp.sys.mac.advocacy
comp.sys.mac.hardware
comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc
comp.sys.powerpc

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE

The group comp.sys.powerpc is being consistently swamped by posts bearing
little relation to the PowerPC processor family (a recent survey of 913
articles found only 26 of relevance to the PowerPC). This has been an ongoing
phenomenon that shows no sign of abating. While some of these posts
are blatant violations of the group's charter, most are applicable under
that charter but are now deemed more appropriate for other existing groups.
This proposal recognises the fact that the original charter is too wide for a
single group, and attempts to balance the need for specialised forums against
the widespread general interest in the PowerPC family.

The main thrust of this proposal is to refocus the group upon the PowerPC
processors themselves, instead of specific hardware and software systems
based around those processors. Naturally the chips cannot be discussed in
isolation, and this is expressly allowed for in the charters of individual
groups (see below). However, groups already exist for users of, say, the
Macintosh or Windows NT, and these groups are preferrable to c.s.p
for topics relating only to those systems.

The original charter for comp.sys.powerpc follows, with an indication of
how it relates to the proposed new structure:

:: (1) To discuss the design, programming, and administration of systems
::     and applications which use the IBM/Apple/Motorola PowerPC RISC
::     based architecture.
::
:: (2) To share ideas, information, and specific experience regarding
::     design and programming of applications within the PowerPC
::     environment, including efficient system design and useful PowerPC
::     programming techniques;

Design of systems moves to c.s.p.systems-design. Assembly-level programming
may be discussed in c.s.p.asm-level. Other programming and administration
questions belong in groups specific to each operating system or machine.

:: (3) To discuss the development tools and documentation regarding the
::     PowerPC environment;
::
:: (4) To discuss porting issues for bringing established products to the
::     new PowerPC platforms;

Most of these belong in OS- or machine-specifc groups. However, processor
documentation may be discussed in c.s.p.misc, and OS-independent porting
issues in c.s.p.system-design.

:: (5) To discuss new products of interest to PowerPC developers and
::     users, including updates to PowerPC systems, new third party
::     products, their usage, advantages and drawbacks, and, where
::     shareware/freeware can be found for downloading;

These are not appropriate for the c.s.p hierachy, and should be posted to
OS- or machine-specific groups.

:: (6) To educate and inform others about the strengths, weaknesses, and
::     general usage of PowerPC, to solve real world problems;
::
:: (7) To discus the goals, objectives, decisions, and services of the
::     PowerOpen organization;

These move to c.s.p.advocacy. System design standards (such as PReP and CHRP)
supported by PowerOpen belong in c.s.p.system-design.

:: (8) To provide PowerPC developers and potential users who have Usenet
::     access to a common newsgroup to share with one another PowerPC
::     ideas, concerns, experiences, questions, and knowledge.

Where not covered by any other group, this may be carried out in c.s.p.misc.

The following [four] sections discuss the individual changes proposed in this
Request.

(1) NEW GROUP:   comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy

Status: unmoderated
Distribution: world-wide
Purpose: Discussion of the benefits of PowerPC-based systems

  CHARTER:

To discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the PowerPC architecture, and
specific implementations of that architecture. Such discussion may include
performance benchmarks, but advocacy of a specific PowerPC-based system
belongs in a group specific to that system.

(2) NEW GROUP:   comp.sys.powerpc.asm-level

Status: unmoderated
Distribution: world-wide
Purpose: Discussion of the architecture and low-level programming of
         PowerPC processors

  CHARTER:

To discuss the technical issues surrounding the PowerPC architecture, and
the design of specific implementations of that architecture. This might
include assembly-language programming questions that are not tightly bound
to a specific OS or machine, discussion of differences between PowerPC
processors, and discussion of dedicated support devices such as cache
controllers.

(3) NEW GROUP:   comp.sys.powerpc.misc

Status: unmoderated
Distribution: world-wide
Purpose: Discussion of PowerPC-related topics that otherwise lack a home

  CHARTER:

To discuss matters related to the PowerPC processor family that otherwise
do not belong in a specific group. Rules of thumb are that this group
should be an absolute last resort, and should not contain anything specific
to a particular machine or OS or be cross-posted to any such group. An
exception to the latter is that people wondering where to post a PowerPC-
related article are welcome to ask for advice here.

(4) NEW GROUP:   comp.sys.powerpc.system-design

Status: unmoderated
Distribution: world-wide
Purpose: Discussion of the architecture and design of PowerPC-based
         systems

  CHARTER:

To discuss technical issues involved in the design of computer systems
based on PowerPC processors. This specifically includes hardware standards
such as PReP and CHRP. This group takes a system-wide view, whereas
discussion of specific peripherals such as cache or bus controllers is
more appropriate in c.s.p.asm-level. Comparisons to systems based on
other processors belong in c.s.p.advocacy.

(5) REMOVE GROUP:   comp.sys.powerpc

It is proposed that this be contingent on the passing of proposition (3).
The reason for a linked create/remove, instead of a rename, is that the
charter of c.s.p.misc is changed from that of c.s.p. Note that the proposed
contigency relationship is unidirectional - it is quite possible for (3) to
pass but (5) to fail, in which case c.s.p would remain (although many of
its chartered topics would be more appropriately posted to whichever new
groups had been created based on this RFD).

Simon Brady

Dunedin, New Zealand

 
 
 

RFD: comp.sys.powerpc reorganisation [repost]

Post by Lawson Engli » Wed, 16 Aug 1995 04:00:00


: [Note that this RFD was originally posted on 25-Jul-95. However, this repost
: includes the following groups which were missed in the initial post:
[snipt]
: Design of systems moves to c.s.p.systems-design. Assembly-level programming
: may be discussed in c.s.p.asm-level. Other programming and administration
: questions belong in groups specific to each operating system or machine.
[snipt]

: (2) NEW GROUP:   comp.sys.powerpc.asm-level

: Status: unmoderated
: Distribution: world-wide
: Purpose: Discussion of the architecture and low-level programming of
:          PowerPC processors

:   CHARTER:

: To discuss the technical issues surrounding the PowerPC architecture, and
: the design of specific implementations of that architecture. This might
: include assembly-language programming questions that are not tightly bound
: to a specific OS or machine, discussion of differences between PowerPC
: processors, and discussion of dedicated support devices such as cache
: controllers.

As I've said before, the way this is worded limits discussion to non-HLL
optimizations.

PowerPC-specific programming covers a wide range of issues, from
assembly-level optimizations,, to compiler-writing issues, to
data-structure alignment issues, to who-knows-what. To suggest that
*ONLY* assembly-language programming questions and the like are relevant is
to ignore what PowerPC programmers have already been discussing in this
newsgroup since it first appeared.

Since the only comments on the name and charter of this particular newsgroup
that I've seen in news.groups and comp.sys.powerpc have been critical of
it, I'd suggest that the name and charter needs more thought.

Certainly, I haven't seen a single comment from anyone that claims to
program the PowerPC who has approved of it.

Since those are the folks who would be using the newsgroup, this should
suggest something...

 --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English                            __  __     ____  ___       ___ ____

                                        /   / \  / / / / /__ /  \/ /___  /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

RFD: comp.sys.powerpc reorganisation [repost]

Post by Philip Machani » Wed, 16 Aug 1995 04:00:00





> : (2) NEW GROUP:   comp.sys.powerpc.asm-level
> PowerPC-specific programming covers a wide range of issues, from
> assembly-level optimizations,, to compiler-writing issues, to
> data-structure alignment issues, to who-knows-what. To suggest that
> *ONLY* assembly-language programming questions and the like are relevant is
> to ignore what PowerPC programmers have already been discussing in this
> newsgroup since it first appeared.

I have to agree with this -- it might be better to have a group called
comp.sys.powerpc.optimization which covers much of this ground, but more
discussion is needed to see if this is what people would like.

There might also be a case for an architecture group, but one could also
argue for placing that in the comp.arch hierarchy (though this would set a
precedent for that hierarchy).

Other programming issues probably _do_ belong in groups specific to a given OS.
--

Department of Computer Science, University of the Witwatersrand
2050 Wits, South Africa
phone 27(11)716-3309  fax 27(11)339-7965

 
 
 

RFD: comp.sys.powerpc reorganisation [repost]

Post by AndyJawl » Thu, 17 Aug 1995 04:00:00


One of the confusing things about the current newsgroups is the mixing of
microprocessor topics and computer systems topics.  I think there's
sufficient content for a separation of the two, and there would be little
overlap in the discussion.

Someone suggested the following:

comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy
comp.sys.powerpc.software
comp.sys.powerpc.hardware
comp.sys.powerpc.misc

Andy Jawlik

 
 
 

RFD: comp.sys.powerpc reorganisation [repost]

Post by Ludis Lange » Thu, 17 Aug 1995 04:00:00



>One of the confusing things about the current newsgroups is the mixing of
>microprocessor topics and computer systems topics.  I think there's
>sufficient content for a separation of the two, and there would be little
>overlap in the discussion.

>Someone suggested the following:

>comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy
>comp.sys.powerpc.software
>comp.sys.powerpc.hardware
>comp.sys.powerpc.misc

The software and hardware groups you propose will act as magnets for all
sorts of questions that should instead be in system specific newsgroups.

If "asm-level" is a problematic name, how about "instructionset"?

Ludis Langens

 
 
 

RFD: comp.sys.powerpc reorganisation [repost]

Post by Lawson Engli » Thu, 17 Aug 1995 04:00:00


[snipt]
: The software and hardware groups you propose will act as magnets for all
: sorts of questions that should instead be in system specific newsgroups.

: If "asm-level" is a problematic name, how about "instructionset"?

Same problem. Discussions of L2 cache coherency issues for texture-mapped
games are cross-platform issues, have nothing to do with asm-level or
instruction sets, and belong  in a comp.sys.powerpc.* newsgroup.

IMHO, of course.

c.s.ppc.technical seems to work best. If needed, it can later be divided as
c.s.ppc.t.hardware/software (or programming)/misc without disrupting
anything else.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English                            __  __     ____  ___       ___ ____

                                        /   / \  / / / / /__ /  \/ /___  /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

RFD: comp.sys.powerpc reorganisation [repost]

Post by Chris Goed » Thu, 17 Aug 1995 04:00:00


[Note, followups to news.groups only.]



>: If "asm-level" is a problematic name, how about "instructionset"?

>Same problem. Discussions of L2 cache coherency issues for texture-mapped
>games are cross-platform issues, have nothing to do with asm-level or
>instruction sets, and belong  in a comp.sys.powerpc.* newsgroup.

What about a name like chip-level?

chris

 
 
 

RFD: comp.sys.powerpc reorganisation [repost]

Post by Bill Moye » Fri, 18 Aug 1995 04:00:00




>Someone suggested the following:

>comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy
>comp.sys.powerpc.software
>comp.sys.powerpc.hardware
>comp.sys.powerpc.misc

  The problem I see with this is that Apple users will still
flood all of these newsgroups, making information just as diffi-
cult for us "others" to pick out as it is now, and it does not
provide a distinction between high-level software/hardware (ie,
SoftWin, or the hardware configuration of the 9500) and low-level
software/hardware (ie, TLB flushing algorithms, or interleaved L2
cache data busses).  People from each of these catagories will get
in the other's way.  

  Not that a quadruple number of newsgroups are necessary..  
Low-level software issues, for instance, are likely to be suffi-
ciently generic that it won't matter if the users intend to apply
them to Mac or PowerPS systems.  Also, there's likely to be suffi-
ciently little traffic on the low-level hardware issues newsgroup
that picking out issues relevant to one's concerns would not be
very hard.  In fact, the low-traffic newsgroups could probably be
collapsed into one.  How does this sound?:

comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy
comp.sys.powerpc.apple.software
comp.sys.powerpc.apple.systems
comp.sys.powerpc.motoibm.software
comp.sys.powerpc.motoibm.systems
comp.sys.powerpc.engineering
comp.sys.powerpc.misc

--

 
 
 

RFD: comp.sys.powerpc reorganisation [repost]

Post by Mike Wrig » Sat, 19 Aug 1995 04:00:00



>   The problem I see with this is that Apple users will still
> flood all of these newsgroups, making information just as diffi-
> cult for us "others" to pick out as it is now, and it does not
> provide a distinction between high-level software/hardware

So long as Apple's machines have "Power PC" written on the front, Power
Mac users will continue to post to groups named comp.sys.powerpc.* If this
group is intended for discussing CPU and System designs, then it should be
renamed to something like comp.sys.ppc or comp.sys.mppc similar to
comp.sys.m6809, comp.sys.m68k and comp.sys.m88k

This name would be sufficiently obscure that Macintosh/Clone users will
not find it, but obvious enough for people who want to discuss CPU
architectures to find. Discussions about Macs based on the PowerPC would
then move back to comp.sys.mac.* where they belong.

Just my 2 pence worth,

--
Mike Wright,
Support Engineer, Central Computer Unit.

 
 
 

RFD: comp.sys.powerpc reorganisation [repost]

Post by Lawson Engli » Sun, 20 Aug 1995 04:00:00


[snipt]
: Other programming issues probably _do_ belong in groups specific to a given OS.

Sure. But not all platform-specific-sounding articles are platform specific.

"How do I optimize CopyBits on a PowerMac?" is probably platform specific.

"HOw do I optimize bitmaps for use with CopyBits on a PowerMac?" is kinda
grey, depending on which way the thread roams.

"How do I create an optimized COpyBits replacement on PowerMacs?" is
almost certainly a comp.sys.powerpc.* thread. The name should be changed
to "How do I create an optimized blitter for the PowerPC?" so that folks
will understand what's being discussed.

I just want a newsgroup name that won't encourage "Which is better for
PowerPC, Symantec or CodeWarrior?" discussions but WILL encourage
PowerPC-specific issues that don't bore  OS/2, WIndows NT and AIX
programmers.

c.s.ppc.asm-level doesn't cut it, IMHO, since only a handful of folks do
asm-level work, but lots of folks are still interested in PowerPC
programming in C, Pascal, etc.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English                            __  __     ____  ___       ___ ____

                                        /   / \  / / / / /__ /  \/ /___  /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

RFD: comp.sys.powerpc reorganisation [repost]

Post by Dan P » Sun, 20 Aug 1995 04:00:00



Quote:>I just want a newsgroup name that won't encourage "Which is better for
>PowerPC, Symantec or CodeWarrior?" discussions but WILL encourage
>PowerPC-specific issues that don't bore  OS/2, WIndows NT and AIX
>programmers.

I'm afraid this is impossible.  Once you have "ppc" in the newsgroup name
(and you can't avoid it if you want to encourage PowerPC-specific issues)
there is _no_ way to prevent the idiots popping up with their off topic
"Symantec vs CodeWarrior" debates.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division

Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

 
 
 

RFD: comp.sys.powerpc reorganisation [repost]

Post by Martin Nisshage » Tue, 22 Aug 1995 04:00:00



>c.s.ppc.asm-level doesn't cut it, IMHO, since only a handful of folks do
>asm-level work, but lots of folks are still interested in PowerPC
>programming in C, Pascal, etc.

Why not c.s.ppc.cpu-programming?

m a r t i n  n

--

http://www.cd.chalmers.se/~mts

 
 
 

RFD: comp.sys.powerpc reorganisation [repost]

Post by Lawson Engli » Tue, 22 Aug 1995 04:00:00



: >c.s.ppc.asm-level doesn't cut it, IMHO, since only a handful of folks do
: >asm-level work, but lots of folks are still interested in PowerPC
: >programming in C, Pascal, etc.

: Why not c.s.ppc.cpu-programming?

That works. Inelegant, unwieldy, even ugly, but it works...

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English                            __  __     ____  ___       ___ ____

                                        /   / \  / / / / /__ /  \/ /___  /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

RFD: comp.sys.powerpc reorganisation [repost]

Post by Woa » Wed, 23 Aug 1995 04:00:00


I think it makes sense to keep Operating System discussions in the
comp.os and the comp.unix hierarchies. Otherwise we'll be saddled with
a lot more crossposting and confusion.

--
 +------All Views Expressed Are My Own And Not Necessarily Shared By IBM-----+


 + MCI Mail: 734-1182                 Personal URL: http://cactus.org/~woan/ +

 
 
 

RFD: comp.sys.powerpc reorganisation [repost]

Post by Stephane Larochell » Wed, 23 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Woudn't it be simpler to sparate them by operating system?
You could end up with the following:

comp.sys.powerpc.hardware
comp.sys.powerpc.software
comp.sys.powerpc.winnt
comp.sys.powerpc.aix
comp.sys.powerpc.macos
comp.sys.powerpc.os2
comp.sys.powerpc.solaris
comp.sus.powerpc.misc

The reasoning is that like for myself I would be very
interested in the AIX part but would care little (if any)
for the other OSs...

I am sure the MAC crowd cares little of AIX or OS/2 and
vice versa...