 | | Re: CFD: robotics sub-groups
|
|
(...) I'd be happy to provide mailing list resouces {and searchable archives} (as opposed to news services) free of charge for the new (if approved) sub-groups. I'm going to be out-of-town next week, but should be in range of e-mail. -abc (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Robotics sub-groups
|
|
(...) I am uncertain about the first of your five suggestions. It is not clear to me which topics you think should go under "lugnet.robotics.rcx". If this is for discussing RCX firmware, I can see the idea, but general RCX related issues should stay (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | CFD: robotics sub-groups
|
|
Last week, the topic came up about creating a special new group for Robot Arena. (See (URL) for more details and how the thread unfolded.) Assuming this belongs inside the .robotics hierarchy (rather than inside a separate .events hierarchy), a (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: CFD: robotics sub-groups
|
|
(...) As you (may or may not) know, every lugnet.* newsgroup automatically has its own integrated mailing-list gateway. (For example, lugnet.trains@lugnet.com is the mailing list isomorphic to the lugnet.trains newsgroup.) While redundant echoes of (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: robotics sub-groups
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message <36a8875a.87082873@l...et.com>... (...) firmware or (...) I agree with Kekoa, having an alternate firmware group is good enough for now. At a later date it could be split if needed. As of now I think that LegOS and (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: robotics sub-groups
|
|
(...) No, lugnet.comp.lang would be any discussion about computer languages ('lugnet' implies that it should be LEGO-relevant, but it's not explicit). lugnet.robotics.lang would be better, I think. But Todd listed other possibilities which are (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: robotics sub-groups
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote (...) ***Whoops***, I meant "robotics" instead of "comp" in that suggestion. I agree that comp is NOT a good idea. A little usenet slip ;) LINC (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: CFD: robotics sub-groups
|
|
I would like to offer my support of these groups wholeheartedly, while mentionin the issue of the crynwyr mailing list and the fact that it's participants would not necessarily be able to access the new groups (Although I do not believe it would be (...) (26 years ago, 2-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: CFD: robotics sub-groups
|
|
(...) Good news -- They'd be able to access all of the new groups just as well as they currently access the lego-robotics@crynwr.com mailing list. This is because all lugnet.* newsgroups are subscribeable via e-mail: (URL) (26 years ago, 3-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
|
(...) lugnet.robotics.rcxfirmware is certainly more accurate and descriptive than just plain lugnet.robotics.rcx. But I think the 'rcxfirmware' component makes it a bit long, though, in terms of practical limitations on sub-group names -- for (...) (26 years ago, 5-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
|
(...) As a clarification, NQC uses the standard lego firmware, so it probably doesn't belong under lugnet.robotics.fw. Dave (26 years ago, 6-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
|
(...) OYS! (Oops, Yup, Sorry!) NQC is a software development tool which runs on a non-RCX host machine and translates ASCII source code statements into RCX internal bytecodes intended to be downloaded to the RCX unit for execution, yes? Would you (...) (26 years ago, 6-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
|
(...) Exactly. (...) Yes, that's good. (...) One issue would be the potential merging of nqc/rcxcc since rcxcc is really a front end to nqc and shares the same language/constraints/etc. This is really a matter of philosophy - separate groups means (...) (26 years ago, 7-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | New newsgroups lugnet.robotics.events & lugnet.robotics.events.robot-arena
|
|
[Followups set to lugnet.robotics.even...bot-arena] (...) Both of these groups have just been created. Here are their brief charters: CHARTER/PURPOSE ===...=== lugnet.robotics.events (group and hierarchy): Organized events, competitions, (...) (26 years ago, 13-Feb-99, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.events, lugnet.robotics.events.robot-arena)
|
| |
| | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
|
(...) Well, I want the resolution that's most beneficial to the individual projects and most enjoyable for participants. Fine resolution is good as long as it lives up to the promise of providing for more focused discussions but bad if it is so fine (...) (26 years ago, 14-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
|
(...) I agree with your gut- go with one group at first. I suspect it will be a relatively quiet group anyway. Dave (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | RE: Robotics sub-groups
|
|
(...) As the creator? of HFORTH, I would LOVE to have a gruop focused on it. As it stands I am up to my eyeballs in paying consulting work and my family, and barely have enough time to keep development going. Markus has done a great job on LegOS and (...) (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
|
This is just my opinion, but I don't think that the creation of separate groups for legos or h8forth would be a good idea right now. Although a dedicated group to discuss alternative firmware is a good idea, I think overspecializing it right now (...) (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | RE: Robotics sub-groups
|
|
(...) Ralph, which makes the most sense for the group name? Ending it in .h8hforth or .hforth or .forth? How narrow or wide of a scope is most suitable to the project? I gather from your source that the "h8" component is derived directly from (...) (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
|
I also think that RcxCC can perfectly live in the nqc group. One suggestion: it might be good to have a more general announcement group such that e.g. new releases of RcxCC can also be announced to people that are not yet using nqc. Something like (...) (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
|
Hi Todd, I've received several requests to set up a dedicated legOS mailing list. A while ago, you suggested setting up a subgroup, and I'd like to take you up on your offer. Could you create something on the lines of lugnet.robotics.legOS? Thanks, (...) (26 years ago, 16-Feb-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
|
I would like to see at least one of these. It seems that there are several legOS-related projects ongoing and I'm sure people would like to avoid duplicating work (egcs-1.1.1 patches, libgcc.a, etc.). legOS is at the point in its development where (...) (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
|
(...) Following is some rationale on the namings of the 2 new groups created tonight: One thing I missed earlier which is clearer now with all the Droid-dev-kit discussions going on: .sw is potentially ambiguous... To a new or casual user, does it (...) (26 years ago, 19-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
|
