john@wvlpdp (01/30/86)
Lately there have been requests for information about UNIFY INFORMIX, INGRESS, etc and for database info in general. Do people out there think there is enough interest in the various database products to create subcatagories in net.database? net.db.informix net.db.ingress net.db.sir net.db.unify etc and leave net.database for general db discussion. On the other hand, what I am suggesting may already exist and I just don't know about. John Ebersold ihnp4!convex!ctvax!trsvax!doc!wvlpdp
cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/07/86)
In article <1800007@wvlpdp> john@wvlpdp writes: > Lately there have been requests for information about UNIFY > INFORMIX, INGRESS, etc and for database info in general. > Do people out there think there is enough interest in the various > database products to create subcatagories in net.database? > net.db.informix > net.db.ingress > net.db.sir > net.db.unify > etc > and leave net.database for general db discussion. The volume of this group is not overly high and there is no danger (so far) of UNIFY affectionados having to "n" through the torrents of ingress articles... Besides (I could be wrong on this!) most people would probably not mind seeing discussions of databases different from the ones they are currently using. Kind of puts things in a different lite... I'd vote against subdividing net.database just on the basis of the above two reasons... At least until the volume in this group reaches the net.micro.* volumes (;-). DISCLAMER: The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of UCLA or it's emloyees and faculty. The might not even be mine for all I know... +---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------- | "VIOLATORS WILL BE TOAD !" |From the steam tunnels of UCLA | The Dungeon Police | Oleg Kiselev, the student again +---------------------------------------+ ...{ WORLD }!ucla-cs!cs111olg