Forums

[OT] New GNU Octave group

Started by Himanshu May 11, 2006
Himanshu wrote:
> Yes I agree that dsp-octave is not a usenet group. Randy you are very > experienced and ofcourse I would like you to participate. But I am > sorry, that I don't have idea to to how to create a new usenet group. > Any link would be of help. Currently I am using the newsfeed.vmunix.org > as my news server. >
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/ 1st of 4*10^6 Google hits for { create a new usenet group } Ain't Google great ;]
Yes, let's create a usenet group then, OK Himanshu?

--Randy

Randy Yates wrote:

> Yes, let's create a usenet group then, OK Himanshu? > > --Randy >
Although I would suggest that before you start a dsp-octave group you just start a _general_ octave group -- there isn't one, and if someone is doing octave-specific DSP stuff they can always post to just the octave group, or they can cross-post such a group as well as here. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/ "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" came out in April. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
Randy Yates wrote:
> Yes, let's create a usenet group then, OK Himanshu? > > --Randy >
Yes, lets start the usenet group. But would we have to go to a long process, about a month as mentioned here : http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/, before we can have something useful? I liked Tim's idea. We can have 2 groups one for general octave, and other one for DSP specific stuff. I originally thought of DSP specific group, though. So, do we need to post on news.announce.newgroups? Warm regards --Himanshu
I liked Tim's idea too, but I don't like the idea of
segregating octave groups into different applications.
That's over-complicating. Let's just have an "octave"
newsgroup, OK? I'm sure (for example) the "digital comm"
folks can live with the "DSP" folks and vice-versa.

--Randy

PS: Waiting a month is not a problem - we've waited
6(+) years.

Yes, I've found this to be the case as well. In my opinion
they should just merge the two so that you get the whole
enchilada when you DL/install octave.

--RY

Randy Yates wrote:
> Yes, I've found this to be the case as well. In my opinion > they should just merge the two so that you get the whole > enchilada when you DL/install octave. > > --RY >
Okay, I am preparing an RFD to post at news.annonce.newgroup There are a few things. Group hierarchy: comp.soft-sys.octave (Is is okay?) Other thing is should the group be moderated or unmoderated. what is your suggestion? warm regards --Himanshu -- +-----------------------------------+ | Himanshu Singh Chauhan | | MCA (Final Year) | | I.G. National Open University | | Jaipur (India) | | | | Contact: hs.chauhan@gmail.com | +-----------------------------------+
Randy Yates schrieb:
> I liked Tim's idea too, but I don't like the idea of > segregating octave groups into different applications. > That's over-complicating. Let's just have an "octave" > newsgroup, OK? I'm sure (for example) the "digital comm" > folks can live with the "DSP" folks and vice-versa.
You can use the Octave mailing list via news.gmane.org.
Himanshu Chauhan <hs.chauhan@gmail.com> wrote in news:e43q5s$13a6$1
@defiant.vmunix.org:

> Randy Yates wrote: >> Yes, I've found this to be the case as well. In my opinion >> they should just merge the two so that you get the whole >> enchilada when you DL/install octave. >> >> --RY >> > > Okay, I am preparing an RFD to post at news.annonce.newgroup > There are a few things. > Group hierarchy: > comp.soft-sys.octave (Is is okay?)
This makes sense since comp.soft-sys.matlab is in same area.
> > Other thing is should the group be moderated or unmoderated. > what is your suggestion?
I would go with unmoderated. 1. Professional groups don't get abused too often. 2. Unmoderated groups have a faster exchange of ideas. 3. Moderators are either "held hostage" by the group or the group dies. -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
Al Clark wrote:

> Himanshu Chauhan <hs.chauhan@gmail.com> wrote in news:e43q5s$13a6$1 > @defiant.vmunix.org: > > >>Randy Yates wrote: >> >>>Yes, I've found this to be the case as well. In my opinion >>>they should just merge the two so that you get the whole >>>enchilada when you DL/install octave. >>> >>>--RY >>> >> >>Okay, I am preparing an RFD to post at news.annonce.newgroup >>There are a few things. >>Group hierarchy: >>comp.soft-sys.octave (Is is okay?) > > > This makes sense since comp.soft-sys.matlab is in same area. > > > >>Other thing is should the group be moderated or unmoderated. >>what is your suggestion? > > > I would go with unmoderated. > > 1. Professional groups don't get abused too often. > 2. Unmoderated groups have a faster exchange of ideas. > 3. Moderators are either "held hostage" by the group or the group dies. > > >
Things are going in a good direction. *fly in ointment* Who will be *PHYSICAL* host? [ok so i like to ask 'nasty' questions ;]