May 1986; Volume 4, No. 7; Whole No. 43

CFOG's PIP, May 1986, Volume 4 No. 7, Whole No. 43, page 3 + 13

THE FUTURE OF CFOG: A CONVERSATION ON RCPM #2

One of the fine features of our RCPMs is the ability to engage in a conversation that a number of people can participate in over a period of time. Good ideas can and do emerge. The following colloquy occured over one week in June. I posted a message about the future of CFOG for only one purpose: to provoke comments. See here just how effective the project was!

Msg #753

posted 06/21/86 by Benjamin Cohen

Can I provoke some comments on this:

Should CFOG mainly try to continue to support CP/M users, Osborne users principally, but all types of CP/M users (including CP/M substitutes such as ZCPR1-2-3), and provide to those of its members who have such interests a modicum of support for other interests that they may have. At some time in the future, there may be [will be] no significant interest in CFOG as a CP/M user group, and it could then be merged into some then existing user group with a [then] broader base.

The rationale behind this idea is that CFOG has no logical argument to MS-DOS or other users in the competition for "outside" "new" members to the extent that they have no interest in CP/M. Thus, the argument runs: there's no reason why a new IBM PC or clone purchaser would join CFOG when there are many IBM only user groups available. If we move to support MS-DOS strongly we can still at best only hope to retain some percentage of the present membership that we currently have.

Ergo, the argument runs, why try to do something about attrition? The institutionaI imperative should not be honored. Let CFOG live out its appointed term as a CP/M user group, and when all of its members have moved off in other directions the remainder can merge into another group.

Msg #755

posted 06/21/86 by Bill Kuykendall

One of the major points in Ben's argument can be summarized as follows: "Why try to duplicate the efforts of other (IBM based) user groups when they (presumably) are better equipped to support those users?"

I take exception to the basic premise of that argument -- the idea that we have nothing to offer to MS-DOS users. Many, if not most of CFOG's most active and helpful members have, out of necessity, moved on to MS-DOS or UNIX in their businesses. Those who no longer use CP/M are no longer members, but many still use their older machines at home. I am certain that we have more knowlegde of MS-DOS and the software packages in use on these machines than the first members of CFOG had of CP/M. The argument that a 'niche' is needed for CP/M users and that CFOG is that niche, is negated by the 'duplication doctrine'.

There are already groups totally dedicated to CPM/ZCPR. The Z-NODE users are an excellent example -- Rich doesn't even allow messages about MS-DOS on his systems, even though he also owns an IBM-PC. CACHE still has a CPM SIG group also. In fact, the 'niche' that CFOG once provided was a user group for business users who didn't care about operating systems at all, but were interested in how to use the programs that they needed to make their lives easier at work.

There are very few offices left that are locked into the CP/M operating system these days. There are a few users who feel threatened by MS-DOS. MS-DOS took away the commercial viability of CP/M and all but stopped the flow of quality applications programs. Now it threatens to take over their last refuge -- the user group. I don't see it that way, though.

User groups are made up of 3 kinds of users - novices, in-betweens, and gurus. The only difference between a novice and a guru is the number and difficulty levels of the problems (s)he's solved. Traditionally, CFOG's 'gurus' have been business users who were forced to find solutions to their problems. Pure hobbiests have no necessity driving them, and often conquer such obscure problems that their experience is of little use to other users. In my opinion, the choice is clear: We either support business users or we all lose as the quality of users drops off.

Msg #756

posted 06/21/86 by Bill Kuykendall

As President of CFOG, and Sysop of one of our RCP/M's I have a duty to maintain a certain level of neutrality in discussions of this kind. As such, I am open to any and all opinions on this subject. The Board of Directors is committed to following the course of action dictated by the users. For purposes of discussion, I open this topic up, not only to members, but to all who might consider membership in a user group, be it CFOG or some other group.

Changing hats, I am also a user, and an ordinary member of CFOG. As such, I do have strong feelings on this matter. I currently use CP/M for only one task -- operating this RCP/M. I use both MS-DOS and UNIX at work, and would like to be a member of a user group that supports my interests. In 1987 I WILL be a member of such a group. I hope that each of you will be just as candid about where you stand. We have the talent and the assets to be an outstanding group if we choose to be.

Membership numbers aren't everything, either. What's important is a strong comraderie, and a willingness to help one anotner. Whether that can best be accomplished by sticking to one operating system or by expanding to include other users I can't say. We'll have to decide that together.

Msg #757

posted 06/21/86 by John Mundt

I do not see the business/hobbyist division as being a dicnotomy that cannot and is not bridged often. The one is often the other. And, as the number of CP/M systems decline, and as users move on to UNIX or MP/M, there will be less and less usage of this board. If it is to stay viable, as many users as possible sending in their $20 [CFOG dues] is mandatory. To cut one group off in favor of another is self-defeating.

The idea of SIGS here was a step in the right direction, although there seems to be little interest in them. One of the real problems as I see it is that there is nothing new coming along. People aren't writing for the CP/M environment any more.

I will go back to an idea that I had earlier, that this board try to become the "WordStar", or "SuperCalc", or dBase board of the city. There are still enough users of these programs to justify a board that will cater to those particular needs, and I'll bet that most ozzies are being used for the above programs.

Msg #759

posted 06/21/86 by Benjamin Cohen

A couple of minor points:

A. Rich Jacobsen doesn't own an IBM PC or clone -- he uses one at his office where it is owned by the firm.

B. There is a good deal of activity in software being written for CP/M. It's nowhere near as hot as the MS-DOS area, of course, but it's not fair to say nothing is coming out. See my message about VDE version 2.1, for example.

And a major point:

The proposition that I set out was designed to provoke comment and does not necessarily represent my current or final position on the subject. I am open to all ideas in any event.

One point that I should make clear -- the position positited is not that CFOG should not deal with members' MS-DOS needs, nor is it that CFOG would be a "clone" of MS-DOS user groups, but that in competing with MS-DOS user groups we do not start on level ground vis-a-vis the non-CP/M user. What do we have to offer the guy who has never had a computer and just got a Compaq, IBM PC, etc., vs. what a "plain vanilla" MS-DOS user group? There is no doubt that we do have something to offer the CP/M user who is moving to MS-DOS at the office or whatever -- or to UNIX, or whatever.

Msg #763

posted 06/22/86 by Bill Kuykendall

What some of us have to offer to beginning MS-DOS users is precisely what we have to offer to CP/M users. I would venture to say that I have more to offer to an IBM-PC user than I have to offer to a CP/M user at this point. That doesn't make me incompetent in CP/M -- just bilingual.

I work in the same office with Glen Ostgaard, our other Sysop, and I can speak for him also. He uses MS-DOS exclusively at work. If I was new to MS-DOS, I'd be glad to have him around to ask questions of. Still, that doesn't seem to have hurt his knowledge of CP/M a bit.

Since a User Group is no more or less than the sum of it's users, I'd say it would be impossible to judge whether we stand on higher or lower ground with respect to other "IBM only" groups. You would have to judge each member seperately on his own qualifications and then add them all up. In any case, you might bei surprised to find that some of the opposition's best talent are old CFOG players who got pushed aside by our unwillingness to continue to support business computer users when the business world changed brands.

The Osborne computer is a great machine even by today's standards. And for the record, I share the resentment that a lot of users have toward IBM for its ability to take over the market based on corporate size alone. A lot of little guys with great ideas have gotten lost in the shuffle who might have given us better machines. But let's be honest here -- it's precisely BECAUSE of the Adam Osbornes out there who are technical geniuses but egotistical business idiots; who have crashed businesses leaving their customers stranded without support that the public turned to IBM and said, "I don't care if you're the best. I know you're gonna BE here".

For better or for worse, that's the real world, and we, as a user group, either have to accept it and move with it, or fade into the sunset where we belong. I will use my Osborne until it finally dies and I'll probably resurrect it as long as Mark Witt has parts. But I can't afford to quit my job because they won't buy Osbornes for me to use. Besides, sometimes it's NICE to use a more sophisticated machine! Hey guys, am I all alone out here?

Msg #784

posted 06/25/86 by Jim Kirschenmann

Like others, I am using MS-DOS at work. I continue to use my Osborne and find it more comfortable to use when dealing with the standard Business Applications; i.e. dBASE, WordStar and SuperCalc. With conversion programs readily available, I have found that I do a lot of my "homework" on the Osborne 1 and then convert the data files for use at the office under MS-DOS.

From the perspective of a professional "observer" of the CP/M vs MS-DOS trends, there will remain a large group of CP/M users in the business community IF we know where to look for them. Zenith Data Systems (my employer) is still finding a thriving business in the 'Dual-Processor' (8085/8086) market, even though they are also going great guns in the PC market.

What people will use is what they feel comfortable with, and Zenith Data Systems is profiting from that basic human trait.

I tend to agree with John Mundt in that the best "draw" for new users of CFOG would be in the library and support of the standard business applications -- those that cross the lines of operating systems. In addition, however, the contribution to better understanding of the operating systems comes only from the support of foIks that we have in this group... as users we can all benefit from the interaction which we have seen in this group. That type of support also crosses the boundaries of operating systems, and I believe, will continue to evolve as the systems themselves evolve.

In short, my response to the question is anotner question -- Why worry about the Operating System at all? What counts is the applications and the interchange of assistance / info on how to better make use of these machines for those applications. MS-DOS has gone through its share of changes and challenges recently and may be losing its hold just as CP/M has. The evolution of personal computing is now moving toward a single machine handling SEVERAL Operating Systems including cp/m, MS-DOS, UNIX and others. Now more than ever, the users' group is an essential forum for the exchange of ideas -- not just operating system tips.