Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!crs
From: crs@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.lan,net.analog,net.dcom,net.lsi
Subject: Re: reaching Apps engrs by email
Message-ID: <22806@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 4-Mar-85 10:50:54 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.22806
Posted: Mon Mar  4 10:50:54 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Mar-85 04:15:03 EST
References: <766@amdcad.UUCP>
Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA
Distribution: net
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 60
Xref: watmath net.micro:9607 net.lan:708 net.analog:185 net.dcom:888 net.lsi:89

> Most of AMD's apps engineers have accounts on Unix systems where
> they can receive electronic mail. Without making any commitment
> to do anything, I would like to inquire as to whether there would
> be any interest in being able to ask applications questions to
> our engineers via email or whether the old fashioned way of telephone
> calls is good enough. I am sure that many (most) of the users of
> USENET are software types but there are enough hardware types to
> justify groups like net.analog.
> 
> I had in mind publishing a list of chips and the mboxes of the engineers
> responsible for supporting them. Send mail to me indicating:
> 1) whether you'd use this
> 2) how do you get applications assistance now
> 3) what chips you're interested in
> 4) estimate of the annual dollar value of AMD chips you buy now
> (personally I don't care but I think management does)
> 5) general comments
> 
> If you consider this an exploitation of the net, don't flame me,
> just let me know. We certainly don't want to offend anybody, just
> possibly offer a service of value to people.
> -- 
>  Why, that's more useless than the left thumb of a touch typist!
> 
>  Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720
>  UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
>  ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA

I think it would be a convenience rather than "exploitation."  I have
wondered why this wasn't common practice.  Your comment about
"exploitation" may explain it but not to my satisfaction.  If e-mail
availability to someone who can help me get my job done more quickly
is exploitation of the net, then I say we should have more of it.

Consider the following:

1.  Some people (including me) are better at explaining what they need
to know in writing than via the telephone but writing a letter through
normal "channels" is slow and costly.

2.  If I do phone someone, they may be out, on another line, or their
phone may be busy.  I therefore must wait an appropriate time and then
try again.  If I send my query by e-mail, it waits for them.  When
they finish what they are doing now, they can then reply to *my*
query.  I don't have to do anything else (in the ideal).

3.  E-mail is non-intrusive.  It won't interrupt something important
that the recipient is doing so it is better on that end too.

I don't think that e-mail should *replace* the telephone as a means of
such communication but I *do* think it can be a valuable supplement to
it.

I would like to have e-mail access to other semi-conductor houses,
too.  If others think that this is "exploitation" *I* would appreciate
it if companies would e-mail path information to *me*.

Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2 ihnp4}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa