[OT] New GNU Octave group

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 ;]