🚀 go-pugleaf

Steve Stevenson (the Moderator) writes in comp.hypercube:

> I think that Eugene Miya's is important from two standpoints.

 >   @ For the non-technician, the term "hypercube" has taken on a
 >     generic meaning - like "kleenix" for a tissue.

 >   @ For the technical folks, the term is a specific communications
 >     topology.

> Both distinctions serve a purpose.  I would submit that the problems
> of interest (to the newsgroup) are independent of the topology.
> Locally, we're calling things like the CM and the T-series
> "network connected."  This avoids any committment to any theology.

	Perhaps this explains the low volume of correspondence in 
the hypercube newsgroup.  Since it calls itself "hypercube" and claims 
to be "independent of topology" then its intended audience must be
non-technicians.  Technicians do not contribute because they perceive 
this to be a forum for discussing hypercube theology.  For instance,
Eugene Miya chooses to post his "Parallel Processing top ten references"
(which includes references on hypercubes BTW) in comp.arch, rather than 
comp.hypercube.
	I am tired of wading through the notes in comp.arch to find 
those concerning parallel processing.  (And I'm sure that those 
subscribers to comp.arch who are interrested in architectures are 
tired of the newsgroup being misused for this purpose.)
	I cannot understand why the hypercube newsgroup stubbornly 
clings to its (as pointed out by the moderator) inappropriate name.

						Susan Flynn
						flynn@acf2.nyu.edu
[ Commentary-
  The name is a historical artifact.  The original intent was to
  have a forum for machines which exist and to discuss the large
  problem of designing algorithms for real machines.

  Since this seems to be a continuing problem - the name I mean -
  I will check on the possibility of spawning a parallel parallel
  group (pun intended :-).

  Steve.
]