On Sun, 14 Jan 1996 23:29:27 -0500 John Clark said:
>It seems to me that the existence of this list goes a little way to
>explain the fortunes of Interact.  You used to wait eons for an article
>to be printed on a topic you wanted to know about.  Now you post a query
>and the wisdom of the sages comes back to you in hours, sometimes
>minutes, often touching off a lively exchange of views going far beyond
>what you could ever find in letters to the editor.  The same sages who
>generously give their time and knowledge to the list also stand to reap
>rewards for their businesses or consulting practices by contributing.
>This is as it should be--their effort deserves to be compensated,
>however indirectly.  Basically, The list does in near-real-time what a
>professional journal like Interact used to do in its-about-time: inform
>and (discreetly) advertise.
 
This was my dream in the mid-to-late 80s when the list was born.  I'm more
than pleased to see it's present state.  It began much like a newsletter of
my babblings mailed out to a few dozen electronic subscribers, but now I'm
more than pleased join the audience and leave the floor open.  Now that we
formally have comp.sys.hp.mpe, it's now an official public forum.
 
>It is most illuminating that Ron Seybold chose to seed the readership
>for his new HP 3000 newsletter on this list--and draws part of his
>source information from it.  The time is coming when many print
>publications may be spin-offs of more senior electronic publications.
 
Ron has filled an important niche -- printed media in a timely fashion.
While _Interact_ continues to provide good editorials, columns, and product
reviews, it is not a good source for time-sensitive information when the
publication delay matches or lags behind Express releases of MPE.
 
>As more and more professionals turn to lists, news groups and the Web,
>more and more print journals are going to suffer.  I don't know whether
>this is good or bad.  I guess in itself it isn't either, just melancholy
>for those of us still involved with the printed word.
 
Or else the printed word goes to the web.  Some publications have done
rather well with this (InformationWeek for example) but the effort is
considerable and the subscription income evaporates.  On the other hand,
if your web service is good enough, I wonder how advertising revenues
rate?  Anyone know the cost of ad space on, ohhh, Yahoo, or Dilbert, or...
 
>What I do detect is that, while the utility of online media is already
>putting some print journals at risk, print still has more prestige.  The
>world might not notice that the HP 3000 list has great participation and
>a high signal-to-noise ratio (present posting excepted ;-) The world
>might, however, notice that the HP 3000 magazine is looking emaciated.
 
On average the s/n ratio is good, but we do have our diversions :-)  But
that only adds to the fun (for some of us); and therein perhaps lies the
value of print and/or web - the content is "edited" and "moderated".
There is great value in raw, direct data; there is also a cost of your
time in separating the grain from the chaff.
 
>It's not that Interact is on its uppers.  It's not that MPEople would
>die without Interact.  It's not even that the state of Interact shows
>how HP feels about MPE: Interex isn't HP and even if it were, the
>large proportion of recent articles by HP engineers would suggest HP
>still cares.  It's just that the comparison to HP-UX/USR is so
>*humiliating*, eh?
 
I think that the HP involvement has been the *best* effect of the entire
electronic exchange.  Previously the only user input to the lab was twice
a year (Interex and IPROF) and usually through a liaison.  Now we have the
lab engineers here asking for input in real time as a part of the planning
and design process.  This is an incredible revolution!  Journals aside,
when you have near-immediate interactive involvement with the lab, we have
eliminated the old survey-meeting-liaison cycle with a 6-month turnaround,
and we have a direct forum with the engineers in the labs.  Aside from the
recent Customer Focus Groups which had inputs to bundled ARPA services,
network printing, and other areas now appearing, I don't recall EVER having
any real influence on any product development.  This is a REAL plus!  And
highest praise for the hp.com co-conspirators in this revolution :-)
 
Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>