denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) (12/29/87)
Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? The idea being to separate discussions of the 3b1/7300 machines (which are much more oriented toward personal computer use), from those of the 3b2s, 3b5s, etc. (oriented toward business/development use). The amount of 3b1 traffic makes it difficult for those only interested in the larger machines, and I would guess that a lot of 3b1 owners aren't really interested in the 3b2+ machines. -- Denny Page Martha, the Clones are loose again!
rkh@mtune.ATT.COM (Robert Halloran) (12/30/87)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? > >The idea being to separate discussions of the 3b1/7300 machines (which >are much more oriented toward personal computer use), from those of the >3b2s, 3b5s, etc. (oriented toward business/development use). > >The amount of 3b1 traffic makes it difficult for those only interested >in the larger machines, and I would guess that a lot of 3b1 owners aren't >really interested in the 3b2+ machines. There are a set of 'unix-pc' groups already operating; sources, general, uucp, and test. You might want to contact your news feeds to see if they carry them or could arrange to carry them. It is my understanding that UUNET does forward them, if that's any help. Bob Halloran Distributed Programming Tools Group ========================================================================= Bang-ist: {ATT-ACC, rutgers}!mtune!rkh DDD: (201)957-6034 At-ist: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM USPS: AT&T IS Labs, 200 Laurel Ave Rm 3G-314 Middletown NJ 07748 Disclaimer: These opinions are solely MINE; any correlation with AT&T policies or positions is coincidental and unintentional. Quote: "No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai =========================================================================
kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) (12/30/87)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? Why not start a comp.sys.att.3b2? The same could be said of the 6300 and 6300+ as for the UNIX pc - except there is already an alternate network in place for the discussion of UNIX pc topics, and it probably doesn't make sense to start another new group for a dead product. Check out news.lists, I think, for the info about alternate news hierarchies. The unix-pc.* groups are carried by a lot of machines and are geared specifically for the 3B1/7300. You've probably seen a lot of messages cross-posted. BTW, although many of the UNIX pc owners I know have their machines strictly for personal use, many more are using their machines in or for business or development purposes. Also BTW, I am one 3B1 owner who *is* interested in 3B2 machines, since I also work with one of those. Doesn't this discussion belong in news.groups or something? Kathy Vincent ------> {ihnp4|mtune|codas|ptsfa}!bakerst!kathy ------> {ihnp4|mtune|burl}!wrcola!kathy ------> { favourite AT&T gateway }!wruxe!unix
len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) (12/30/87)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? >The idea being to separate discussions of the 3b1/7300 machines (which >are much more oriented toward personal computer use), from those of the >3b2s, 3b5s, etc. (oriented toward business/development use). > >The amount of 3b1 traffic makes it difficult for those only interested >in the larger machines, and I would guess that a lot of 3b1 owners aren't >really interested in the 3b2+ machines. I have wanted to suggest this for quite some time,and I am sure others feel as Dennis does.. Does anyone want to volunteer to collect votes and move this over to news.groups(?) I have often wished the discussions here were more technical in nature.The amount of installed base of 3B2/3B5 systems out there would seemingly indicate that this is a viable goal.With a little bit of organization,this effort should succeed. I am sure that we can manage to please both unix pc owners and ourselves with this move.. Does anyone have any negative comments regarding this move(?) Let's do it.. -- Len Rose -* Netsys Public Access Network *- The East Coast Machine 301-540-3656 _hunt_ 6 lines 3B2/Unix SV3.1 {ihnp4,decuac,ames}netsys!len
pete@tsc.DEC.COM (Pete Schmitt) (12/31/87)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP>, denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: > > Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? > The traffic on this group doesn't warrent splitting it, plus there are also discussions about 6300s, 6300+s, 6386s. Should they be split off too? No, of course not. If you don't want to read an article about a 3b1 press 'n'. -- \\\!/// From: Pete Schmitt _ _ UUCP: ihnp4!tsc!pete ( Q Q ) It's okay to say the U... word. ---,,,,-------U-------,,,,---
jkg@gatech.edu (Jim Greenlee) (12/31/87)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> you write: >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? >The idea being to separate discussions of the 3b1/7300 machines (which >are much more oriented toward personal computer use), from those of the >3b2s, 3b5s, etc. (oriented toward business/development use). Our site receives several unix-pc.* groups. Perhaps you should check with your local news guru about getting them. >The amount of 3b1 traffic makes it difficult for those only interested >in the larger machines, and I would guess that a lot of 3b1 owners aren't >really interested in the 3b2+ machines. Au contraire (sp?). I support several 7300s and 3b2s in our microprocessor design lab. The 7300s make excellent development stations for doing 68000 related stuff. Our main student workload is carried by the 3b2s. BTW, I also use an AT&T PC 6300 at home so, I get a lot out of this newsgroup :-). Jim Greenlee -- The Shadow...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers}!gatech!jkg Jryy, abj lbh'ir tbar naq qbar vg! Whfg unq gb xrrc svqqyvat jvgu vg hagvy lbh oebxr vg, qvqa'g lbh?!
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (12/31/87)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? No. Reasons below. >The idea being to separate discussions of the 3b1/7300 machines (which >are much more oriented toward personal computer use), from those of the >3b2s, 3b5s, etc. (oriented toward business/development use). But where does that leave the 6300 users (whose talk actually swamps all other discussion in comp.sys.att, in terms of the sheer number of articles)? >The amount of 3b1 traffic makes it difficult for those only interested >in the larger machines, and I would guess that a lot of 3b1 owners aren't >really interested in the 3b2+ machines. Well, this may or may not be true. Personally, I'm interested in all kinds of machines, including a number I will never own (comp.unix.cray comes to mind...). While it might be better if more discussion of 3b1 issues took place in the unix-pc groups, realistically, not everyone gets those. Until everyone does, I fail to see the need to separate 3b1 activity out within the context of the comp.sys groups. This is especially true when you consider the fact that 3b1 traffic is quite small (it probably averages less than 3 messages a day), and is easily filtered out without imposing that much of a handicap on anyone. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
ir1@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (ir1) (12/31/87)
Sender:Neal Beck, Dept. of Pol. Sci. Distribution:comp.sys.att As someone who has a bunch of 6300's but not 3B1's or 2's, I would love to see a group devoted only to 6300. I find now much more of interest in comp.sys.ibm.pc. But we 6300'ers do have special problems. But as of now the few items on the 6300 get lost in either comp.sys.att or comp.sys.ibm.pc. And hitting the k button takes time. Thats one man's opinion. Neal Beck Dept. of Pol. Sci. UCSD e-mail beck@ucsd or beck@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) (01/01/88)
In article <16915@gatech.edu> jkg@gatech.UUCP (Jim Greenlee) writes: >Our site receives several unix-pc.* groups. Perhaps you should check with >your local news guru about getting them. We receive quite enough 3b1 articles already. >Au contraire (sp?). I support several 7300s and 3b2s in our microprocessor >design lab. Read comp.sys.att and comp.sys.att.3b1 then. You'll receive the same stuff you do now. However, those who are not interested in both are given a choice and won't have to wade through the entire mass. -- Denny Page Martha, the Clones are loose again!
denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) (01/01/88)
In article <266@tsc.DEC.COM> pete@tsc.DEC.COM (Pete Schmitt) writes: >The traffic on this group doesn't warrent splitting it, plus there >are also discussions about 6300s, 6300+s, 6386s. Should they be >split off too? No, of course not. If you don't want to read an article >about a 3b1 press 'n'. Unfortunately, it often takes time to determine just what the article is actually about. As to the 6386s, I would include them in the business/development category. I think that this would be obvious. If nothing else, they cost too much to really be considered personal computers. Much of the discussion reguarding the 3b1 revolves around items only of concern to 3b1 users: How do I get rid of the window manager?; How many power supplies have you replaced?; Here is a wonderful new dialer for the builtin modem!; How can I change the control and caps lock key around?... These discussions have no relevance to the other machines whatsoever. -- Denny Page Martha, the Clones are loose again!
emigh@ncsugn.ncsu.edu (Ted H. Emigh) (01/01/88)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? >The idea being to separate discussions of the 3b1/7300 machines (which >are much more oriented toward personal computer use), from those of the >3b2s, 3b5s, etc. (oriented toward business/development use). In article <1870@netsys.UUCP> len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose,NetSys) writes: > I have wanted to suggest this for quite some time,and I am sure others feel > as Dennis does.. Does anyone want to volunteer to collect votes and move this > over to news.groups(?) I have often wished the discussions here were more > technical in nature.The amount of installed base of 3B2/3B5 systems out there > would seemingly indicate that this is a viable goal.With a little bit of > organization,this effort should succeed. > > I am sure that we can manage to please both unix pc owners and ourselves with > this move.. > As Kathy Vincent has mentioned, it doesn't make sense creating a new newsgroup for a dead product. In addition, the 7300 has more in common with the 3B2 than does a 6300. Our site has both 7300s and 3B2s so we have no problem with both in the newsgroup -- and I have noticed that there is less 6300 traffic than there used to be -- maybe it has gone to comp.sys.ibm.pc. I have taken stuff from unix-pc.sources and ported it to the 3B2, and I have used 7300 material in comp.sys.att for the 3B2 -- I see very little reason to make the split. Splitting off the ibm clones on the other hand ... -- Ted H. Emigh, Dept. Genetics and Statistics, NCSU, Raleigh, NC uucp: mcnc!ncsuvx!ncsugn!emigh internet: emigh%ncsugn.ncsu.edu BITNET: NEMIGH@TUCC @ncsuvx.ncsu.edu:emigh@ncsugn.ncsu.edu
bwo@braegen.UUCP (Brian W. Oliver) (01/01/88)
> In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> you write: > >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? > >The idea being to separate discussions of the 3b1/7300 machines (which > >are much more oriented toward personal computer use), from those of the > >3b2s, 3b5s, etc. (oriented toward business/development use). ^^^^^^^^^^^^ (spelling is correct) > Au contraire (sp?). I support several 7300s and 3b2s in our microprocessor > design lab. The 7300s make excellent development stations for doing 68000 > related stuff. Our main student workload is carried by the 3b2s. BTW, I also > use an AT&T PC 6300 at home so, I get a lot out of this newsgroup :-). > > Jim Greenlee I too have an interest in all three AT&T hardware classes: 63xx, 7300/3B1 and 3B2/3B5 etc, but see the advantages in three distinct newsgroups: [1] those only interested in one category are not inundated [2] those interested in more than one can subscribe to whichever they want, and the articles will arrive in an *organized* fashion. Brian Oliver The Braegen Group Transit umbra, lux permanet. Toronto -- Brian Oliver The Braegen Group, Toronto, Ontario {allegra,linus,ihnp4,decvax}!utzoo!yetti!utrc-2at!braegen!bwo
richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) (01/02/88)
> I have taken stuff from unix-pc.sources and ported it to the 3B2, and I > have used 7300 material in comp.sys.att for the 3B2 -- I see very little > reason to make the split. Splitting off the ibm clones on the other > hand ... > I've been following this discussion and feeling it didn't really matter either way. But just creating a separate group for the 6300's sounds like a GREAT idea. Happy New Year! Richard Foulk ...{dual,vortex,ihnp4}!islenet!richard Honolulu, Hawaii
norm@ontenv.UUCP (Norman Soley) (01/02/88)
I think it's a good idea. However I would suggest that instead of
doing the naming based on specific product names (3b1, 6300, 3b2...)
That some sort of generic specification of the classifications be
used. Say based on some fundemental architectural difference between
the two major families. I don't know enough about the machines to
suggest possabilities, someone else will have to.
--
Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment
UUCP: utzoo!lsuc!ncrcan!---\ VOICE: +1 416 323 2623
{utzoo,utgpu}!sickkids!ontenv!norm ENVOY: N.SOLEY
{mnetor,utgpu}!ontmoh/allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (01/02/88)
As quoted from <167@mcmi.UUCP> by denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page): +--------------- | Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? | The amount of 3b1 traffic makes it difficult for those only interested | in the larger machines, and I would guess that a lot of 3b1 owners aren't | really interested in the 3b2+ machines. +--------------- The proper way to do it is to somehow get everyone with a 3b1 onto the 3b1 "alternative newsgroup hierarchy": unix-pc.all has been around for awhile now. -- Brandon S. Allbery, Moderator of comp.sources.misc {hoptoad,harvard!necntc,cbosgd,sun!mandrill!hal,uunet!hnsurg3}!ncoast!allbery [This space reserved for future quotes and similar brain twisters.]
hart@cp1.BELL-ATL.COM (Rod Hart) (01/02/88)
In article <3551@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU>, ir1@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (ir1) writes: > As someone who has a bunch of 6300's but not 3B1's or 2's, I would > love to see a group devoted only to 6300. I find now much more of > interest in comp.sys.ibm.pc. But we 6300'ers do have special > problems. But as of now the few items on the 6300 get lost in > either comp.sys.att or comp.sys.ibm.pc. And hitting the k button > takes time. > Why complicate things. Some of us own both 6300's and 7300's. If we aren't careful we will wind up with separate groups for 7300's and 3b1's. A little moderation and self control is in order. -- Signed by: Rod Hart (WA3MEZ) Minicomputer Technical Support District Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. - A Bell Atlantic Company bellcore!cp1!hart - aplcen!cp1!hart - mimsy!cp1!hart - gamma!cp1!hart
jbm@uncle.UUCP (John B. Milton) (01/02/88)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: > >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? > No! there are a lot of people that like to see what is going on with other att computers. A simple suggestion: ALWAYS PUT ONE OF: 6300, 7300 or 3b1, 3b2 *** IN THE TITLE *** Then you can just "N" your way through the one you're not interested in. John -- John Bly Milton IV, jbm@uncle.UUCP, {ihnp4|cbosgd}!n8emr!uncle!jbm home: (614) 294-4823, work: (614) 459-7644, FLAME via email :)
paddock@mybest.UUCP (Steve Paddock) (01/02/88)
In article <170@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: >In article <266@tsc.DEC.COM> pete@tsc.DEC.COM (Pete Schmitt) writes: ...various reasons for splitting or not splitting comp.sys.att... Just one more vote not to fix what's not broken. This all seems to have blown up while my news feed was down, so I hope the voting is still happening. I have managed to define the majority of the 3b1/7300 stuff I don't want to read into one kill command (/3.51/j), and I _like_ the melange of AT&T stuff. I think the dividing of news groups should not take place unless there is not hope of a reconciliation. :-) We'll just end up having to watch 2 sets of kill commands run. :-) The 3B1, like my 6300 Plus, sadly, is a now inexpensive machine on the way off the market. I don't see where we are served by having a news group for each model of hardware when the commonality of being customers of AT&T is much greater. As someone else noted here, code that runs on AT&T machines seems to be the same everywhere. I recall the Usenix article on math library testers; 3B2 and 3B20 (totally different processors) got identical results; the 3B2 just took 2 days. (I love the 2 I work on!) I'd like to hear more 2 and 5 and 15 and 20 stories, but the answer is not to have a dead newsgroup, and running off the 3B1 users won't get the 3B2 users to post! -- Steve Paddock (ut-emx!mybest!paddock) 512-477-9736 Best Printing Co, Austin, Texas 78767
ninja@bradley.UUCP (01/02/88)
Rather than create another group related to micros, I think it might be a better idea to create a 'comp.sys.att.3b' group for 3b2/5/15/20 users. Then they can cross post to comp.sys.att if they so feel. I don't think there'd be any huge amount of traffic on it though. Personally, I like to read about everything that AT&T sells because we have just about everything here. Frank McGee Bradley University Microcomputer Support Specialist Peoria, Il. 61625
nic@marque.mu.edu (Nic Bernstein) (01/02/88)
Just as an aside, but a group called comp.sys.att.3b1 would be pretty useless to us 3b1 or PC7300 owners, we could read it but it would be saved as "comp.sys.att." 'cause we only got 14 characters for a file name! Seriously though, I think this echos a problem for a lot of us. Are the groups getting so large that we require a split? If so then we will see more and more multiple postings to groups that other folk just "don't get". This may save the individual reading time but loads the net up with mucho duplicate traffic. - Nic
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (01/03/88)
>>Our site receives several unix-pc.* groups. Perhaps you should check with >>your local news guru about getting them. > >We receive quite enough 3b1 articles already. Well, gee. Those of us who are seriously using 3b1's (or trying to :-) are receiving quite enough 3b2 articles already, so why don't we create a group just for 3b2's? :-) Sarcasm off. Probably because a lot of things (not all, but it won't be for ny machine either) that apply to a 3b1, also apply to the 3b2, 3b15, 3b20, ad infinitum. Just because a person screams "I have a problem with a 3b2!" doesn't mean that that problem doesn't exist on a 3b1. Neither does it imply that it _must_ exist on a 3b15. If anything doesn't fit perfectly, it's the 6300 discussions. But I opposed moving that anyways, even though they can go to other groups as well. Anyways, doesn't a group with the name "comp.sys.att" follow the same rules as other similarly named groups, and that being for general discussions? Terminals, peripherals, hardware, complaints about warranty honors [:-)], software, etc belong in their specific groups, should one exist. (gee, I just gave some reasons to make more subgroups... :-) but one needs the volume first. There isn't enough volume. This group has a very _low_ volume compared to a lot of other groups. >>Au contraire (sp?). I support several 7300s and 3b2s in our microprocessor >>design lab. > >Read comp.sys.att and comp.sys.att.3b1 then. You'll receive the same >stuff you do now. However, those who are not interested in both are >given a choice and won't have to wade through the entire mass. See above. I'm very happy with the unix-pc* groups. I get more info there than I do here, for the most part, but not all of it. -- _____________________________________________________________________________ | Robert J. Granvin | INTERNET: rjg@sialis.mn.org | | | 2701 West 43rd Street | UUCP: ...ihnp4!meccts!sialis!rjg | "Whoops!!" | | Minneapolis, MN 55410 | ...uunet!rosevax!ems!sialis!rjg |________________|
rjd@occrsh.ATT.COM (01/03/88)
>> Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? >> >The traffic on this group doesn't warrent splitting it, plus there >are also discussions about 6300s, 6300+s, 6386s. Should they be >split off too? No, of course not. If you don't want to read an article >about a 3b1 press 'n'. > \\\!/// From: Pete Schmitt Yeah, right. For the first time, I am supporting the creation of another group, for what my opinion is worth. The traffic DEFINATELY warrants 3b1/7300 having their own newsgroup. Due to the similarity in the 6300, 6300+, 7300 and common questions that occur, maybe the could be lumped together. I am solely interested in 3B2/5/15/4000/20 articals and the traffic lately has been VERY heavy on the PC stuff. Now, I do not know if their is enough traffic on 3B2/5/15/4000/20 machines to have their own, so maybe lumping these together would be acceptable. Sounds like a count of articals should be made on these subjects. Randy
len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) (01/03/88)
In article <6944@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: As quoted from <167@mcmi.UUCP> by denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page): +--------------- | Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? | The amount of 3b1 traffic makes it difficult for those only interested | in the larger machines, and I would guess that a lot of 3b1 owners aren't | really interested in the 3b2+ machines. +--------------- >The proper way to do it is to somehow get everyone with a 3b1 onto the 3b1 >"alternative newsgroup hierarchy": unix-pc.all has been around for awhile >now. That would be the "logical" solution,but.. You know,and I know it will never happen.. unix-pc.* propigation being what it is.. At this point I suppose it is proper to offer "A FEW" unix-pc news feeds to sites in need.. I would prefer to send it to someone who can pass it on to 4 or 5 other sites,but if you are in a jam,I will try my best.. The "mail.3b2-info" idea has drawn a pretty good response,and I have become enamoured with the idea..Get your tickets now.. :=} Mail info-3b2-request@netsys.UUCP -- Len Rose -* Netsys Public Access Network *- The East Coast Machine attmail: netsys!len uucp: {ames,decuac,ihnp4}!netsys!len 301-540-3656 _hunt_ 6 lines 3B2/Unix SV3.1
vanam@pttesac.UUCP (Marnix van Ammers) (01/03/88)
In article <2260@cp1.BELL-ATL.COM> hart@cp1.BELL-ATL.COM (Rod Hart) writes: >In article <3551@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU>, ir1@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (ir1) writes: >> As someone who has a bunch of 6300's but not 3B1's or 2's, I would >> love to see a group devoted only to 6300. I find now much more of >> >Why complicate things. Some of us own both 6300's and 7300's. If we >aren't careful we will wind up with separate groups for 7300's and >3b1's. A little moderation and self control is in order. I'm for splitting. I am using a kill file now to filter out "6300", but not everyone puts "6300" in their Subject line, even if the subject has to do only with 6300. I also subscribe to unix-pc.*, but apparently not every has access to that news group. (I think unix-pc.* is meant more for 3B1's that are running netnews, but not all 3B1's or 7300's have the capacity to run netnews) It just seems to me that those who own 6300's *and* 7300's should subscribe to two news groups. Most people only own one or the other. I think that comp.sys.att should perhaps be for the 3B5/3B15/3B20 computers which all seem to have a lot in common. You might also throw in 3B2's and 3B4000's. It seems hard enough to split the newsgroup. I doubt that anyone will try (or succeed) at going so ridiculously far as to split the UNIX-PC into a 7300 group and a 3B1 group. Well that was my 2 cents worth. Marnix ----
brant@manta.UUCP (Brant Cheikes) (01/04/88)
I also disagree that comp.sys.att should be split. As Brandon and
others have pointed out, the unix-pc.* groups should be used for all
UNIXpc-related articles, and all interested parties should get a
unix-pc newsfeed.
The problem is that too many UNIXpc articles get posted to both
unix-pc.general and comp.sys.att. I suspect that this is because
people believe their articles will not get widely distributed if they
only post to the unix-pc net. This used to be true, but now the
unix-pc groups really get around.
Like Gaul, my proposed solution is divided into three parts:
1. Articles of interest only to UNIXpc owners should be posted
only to the appropriate unix-pc group.
2. Articles of more general interest should be posted only to
comp.sys.att (this assumes all unix-pc owners also receive
comp.sys.att).
3. If you can't get a unix-pc feed, then post to comp.sys.att,
but be sure to include the string "UNIXPC" in your subject
line, for those who want to take advantage of KILL files.
--
Brant Cheikes
University of Pennsylvania
Department of Computer and Information Science
ARPA: brant@linc.cis.upenn.edu, UUCP: ...drexel!manta!brantrjd@occrsh.ATT.COM (01/04/88)
>Rather than create another group related to micros, I think >it might be a better idea to create a 'comp.sys.att.3b' group >for 3b2/5/15/20 users. Then they can cross post to comp.sys.att >if they so feel. I don't think there'd be any huge amount of >traffic on it though. Personally, I like to read about everything >that AT&T sells because we have just about everything here. > >Frank McGee I was one of those that was in support of the comp.sys.att.3b1 or pc or whatever, but this idea sounds better. Lets go for comp.sys.att.3b, too bad probably none of them are going to work as the 14th character is the "3" (max of 14 characters in the name, right?). How about comp.sys.att3b? Randy
dave@arnold.UUCP (Dave Arnold) (01/04/88)
When I post something regarding the AT&T UNIXpc, what newsgroup should I post it to? ...comp.sys.att? ...unix-pc.general? I usually cross-post. If all unix-pc owner's were "ON" the unix-pc alternate network, then this wouldn't be an issue. Like I said, I will give any site a unix-pc.* news feed as long as you poll, or are in my local calling area. -- Name: Dave Arnold UUCP: ...!uunet!ccicpg!arnold!dave
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (01/04/88)
Person A wants to read 3b1 and 3b2 articles only. Person B wants only 3b2. Person C wants 3b2/15, but never 7300 or 3b20. Maybe an occasional 6300, but never 6300+. Person D doesn't wanna read anything at all, but still subscribes. How about we solve this problem once and for all, and have someone write a really hugely mutant news system that allows everyone to build completely custom news group definitions before you ever see it? Now that would mean that for person A, comp.sys.att would only contain 3b1 and 3b2 articles. Everything else would just be vaporized. Of course, he could always pump all the rec.arts.startrek articles about Tasha Yar's bra, or lack thereof into comp.sys.att if he wanted to also. Now, wouldn't that solve everyones problem, as well as be totally ridiculous? (Obvious sarcasm terminated). :-) -- _____________________________________________________________________________ | Robert J. Granvin | INTERNET: rjg@sialis.mn.org | | | 2701 West 43rd Street | UUCP: ...ihnp4!meccts!sialis!rjg | "Whoops!!" | | Minneapolis, MN 55410 | ...uunet!rosevax!ems!sialis!rjg |________________|
pjc@pbhyf.UUCP (Paul Condie) (01/05/88)
How about another newsgroup to discuss is we need another newsgroup. The traffic seems to warrent it.
denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) (01/05/88)
In article <2861@ncsugn.ncsu.edu> emigh@ncsugn.UUCP (Ted H. Emigh) writes: >As Kathy Vincent has mentioned, it doesn't make sense creating a new >newsgroup for a dead product. The 3b1/7300 being a 'dead' product hasn't stopped the large amount of articles regarding it's unique features and problems. Why do the unix-pc distributions exist anyway? -- Denny Page Martha, the Clones are loose again!
randy@chinet.UUCP (Randy Suess) (01/05/88)
In article <114@arnold.UUCP> dave@arnold.UUCP (Dave Arnold) writes: > >Like I said, I will give any site a unix-pc.* news feed as long as >you poll, or are in my local calling area. Same goes for chinet in the Chicago area. -- that's the biz, sweetheart..... Randy Suess ..!ihnp4!chinet!randy
richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) (01/05/88)
> I was one of those that was in support of the comp.sys.att.3b1 or pc > or whatever, but this idea sounds better. Lets go for comp.sys.att.3b, > too bad probably none of them are going to work as the 14th character > is the "3" (max of 14 characters in the name, right?). How about > comp.sys.att3b? No. There is no such 14 character limit on newsgroup names. An article in comp.sys.att is normally stored in a file named something like this: /usr/spool/news/comp/sys/att/123 So newsgroup names have the same restrictions as Unix filenames. -- Richard Foulk ...{dual,vortex,ihnp4}!islenet!richard Honolulu, Hawaii
kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) (01/05/88)
In article <2064@chinet.UUCP> randy@chinet.UUCP (Randy Suess) writes: >In article <114@arnold.UUCP> dave@arnold.UUCP (Dave Arnold) writes: >> >>Like I said, I will give any site a unix-pc.* news feed as long as >>you poll, or are in my local calling area. > > Same goes for chinet in the Chicago area. And for bakerst in Winston-Salem, NC - with the additional option of my polling you if you're in one of the PC Pursuit cities. (Be advised that it's almost impossible to get thru to some of the PC P cities.) Kathy Vincent ------> Home: {ihnp4|mtune|codas|ptsfa}!bakerst!kathy ------> AT&T: {ihnp4|mtune|burl}!wrcola!kathy
len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) (01/05/88)
In article <76@sialis.mn.org> rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
-Person A wants to read 3b1 and 3b2 articles only. Person B wants only
-3b2. Person C wants 3b2/15, but never 7300 or 3b20. Maybe an
-occasional 6300, but never 6300+. Person D doesn't wanna read
-anything at all, but still subscribes.
Before you turn this into a flame war,here of all places (we were above that),
let's put this into perspective.
o You exaggerate completely.
I don't beleive the point that you are trying to make,and we don't need such
negative attitudes here.
This is why a mailing list would be a good idea..so drop the "sarcasm" , and forget
about the 3B2 series vs 3B1 series vs 6300's , et al.
info-3b2@netsys will be glad to fill any technical gaps in this group for 3B2 series
systems,and all mailing list subscribers will get what they want.
If mailing list traffic gets to be high enough,then the net.all may be graced with one
more useful newsgroup.
-How about we solve this problem once and for all, and have someone
-write a really hugely mutant news system that allows everyone to build
-completely custom news group definitions before you ever see it? Now
-that would mean that for person A, comp.sys.att would only contain 3b1
-and 3b2 articles. Everything else would just be vaporized. Of
-course, he could always pump all the rec.arts.startrek articles about
-Tasha Yar's bra, or lack thereof into comp.sys.att if he wanted to
-also.
Great attitude.. Just what we need on the net today.
-Now, wouldn't that solve everyones problem, as well as be totally
-ridiculous?
Yes,you are.
-(Obvious sarcasm terminated). :-)
You stand self condemned."Obviously".
--
Len Rose -* Netsys Public Access Network *- The East Coast Machine
attmail: netsys!len uucp: {ames,decuac,ihnp4}!netsys!len
301-540-3656 _hunt_ 6 lines 3B2/Unix SV3.1allbery@axcess.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (01/05/88)
In article <1899@netsys.UUCP>, len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) writes: > In article <6944@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: > As quoted from <167@mcmi.UUCP> by denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page): > +--------------- > | Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? > +--------------- > > >The proper way to do it is to somehow get everyone with a 3b1 onto the 3b1 > >"alternative newsgroup hierarchy": unix-pc.all has been around for awhile > >now. > > At this point I suppose it is proper to offer "A FEW" unix-pc news feeds > to sites in need.. I would prefer to send it to someone who can pass it on > to 4 or 5 other sites,but if you are in a jam,I will try my best.. Ncoast offers both alt.all and unix-pc.all and is happy to take on new UUCP connections. And it's PC-Pursuit-able (UUNET on the cheap? ;-). We do ask a donation for the time your machine is connected; this money goes directly into maintenance and the purchase of new equipment and phone lines. -- ___ ________________, Brandon S. Allbery cbosgd \ ' \/ __ __, __, aXcess Company mandrill| __ | /__> <__ <__ 6615 Center St. #A1-105 !ncoast! / ` | \__. .__> .__> Mentor, OH 44060-4101 necntc | axcess!allbery \___/\________________. Moderator, comp.sources.misc hoptoad/
kak@stc-auts.UUCP (Kris Kugel) (01/06/88)
What's this about 14 characters? I looked in our spool/news directory,
and there is a newsgroup there which translates to comp.laser-printers,
which is certainly longer than 14 characters! Are there news systems
which use a different naming convention than a.b.c -->.../spool/news/a/b/c?
Is the fourteen character limit from something besides file name length?
Kris A. Kugel
Storage Tek: ...{ uunet!nbires, hao, ihnp4 }!stcvax!stc-auts!kak
High Country Software: ...{hao, wldrdg, uunet!nbires}!hicntry!kak
"It is better to light one small cannibal than to torch the duchess"farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (01/06/88)
In article <144800006@occrsh.ATT.COM> rjd@occrsh.ATT.COM writes: >The traffic DEFINATELY warrants 3b1/7300 having their own newsgroup. Bulls**t. According to the latest arbitron, the volume for the entire comp.sys.att group averages 159 messages a month. That amounts to 6 or so messages a day, for ALL the different machines. Sorry, I can't see how that "DEFINATELY" (or even definitely, for that matter) warrants a new group for 3b1s. Or 6300s. Or any other subset of AT&T machines. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
rjd@occrsh.ATT.COM (01/07/88)
>> I was one of those that was in support of the comp.sys.att.3b1 or pc >> or whatever, but this idea sounds better. Lets go for comp.sys.att.3b, >> too bad probably none of them are going to work as the 14th character >> is the "3" (max of 14 characters in the name, right?). How about >> comp.sys.att3b? > >No. There is no such 14 character limit on newsgroup names. An article >in comp.sys.att is normally stored in a file named something like this: > > /usr/spool/news/comp/sys/att/123 > >So newsgroup names have the same restrictions as Unix filenames. > >-- >Richard Foulk ...{dual,vortex,ihnp4}!islenet!richard WRONG! Or, though it is true for "news" systems, it is not always true. The system I read netnews on uses "notes", which instead stores the newsgroups in archived files under a directory by the name of the newsgroup, which is limited to 14 characters. There are many notes sites on the net. So.... the limitation stands and is heeded before new group generation takes place. So sorry. Randy
aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/07/88)
Newsgroups...
Well, I receive "notes" (not news) with the comp.sys.att
newsgroup. I don't have the unix-pc.* newsgroups at all.
(1) Can anybody point me to a nearby feed? In particular, does
anyone at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
with hundreds of 7300s, pick it up?
(2) What is special about the unix-pc.* newsgroups? Why aren't
they part of USEnet (or are they)?
aglew@gould.comal@gtx.com (0732) (01/07/88)
In article <6944@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: As quoted from <167@mcmi.UUCP> by denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page): +--------------- | Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? | The amount of 3b1 traffic makes it difficult for those only interested | in the larger machines, and I would guess that a lot of 3b1 owners aren't | really interested in the 3b2+ machines. +--------------- >The proper way to do it is to somehow get everyone with a 3b1 onto the 3b1 >"alternative newsgroup hierarchy": unix-pc.all has been around for awhile >now. Why is this the proper alternative? Comp.sys.* already has established distribution channels. The alternate network is fine for dense clusters of sites, e.g. Boston or the Bay area, but who is going to give our site (in Arizona) a unix-pc feed? How about a mailing-list interface? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 2501 W. Dunlap, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA | | {ihnp4,cbosgd,decvax,hplabs,seismo}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al (602)870-1696 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
rjd@occrsh.ATT.COM (01/08/88)
>What's this about 14 characters? I looked in our spool/news directory, >and there is a newsgroup there which translates to comp.laser-printers, >which is certainly longer than 14 characters! Are there news systems >which use a different naming convention than a.b.c -->.../spool/news/a/b/c? >Is the fourteen character limit from something besides file name length? > > Kris A. Kugel The "notes" system (pretty widely used, though I think "news" is more prevalent) uses the convention: <spool directory>/<complete newsgroup name>/<4 files> So, for instance, the rec.humor.funny newsgroup (15 characters) is stored on this system in the directory "/u4/notes/rec.humor.funn", note the truncation of the last letter due to maximum file name length of 14 on Unix. This directory contains four files: "access", "note.indx", "resp.indx", and "text". "Text" is the archived sum of all the articals. One advantage of the system is that it is less inode-intensive, one disadvantage is the administration of the archives. Note: I am not the admin of this system, and all that I have quoted above is what I remember from when I questioned the admin on it a while back. Randy
davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) (01/08/88)
In article <235@stc-auts.UUCP> kak@stc-auts.UUCP (Kris Kugel) writes: > >What's this about 14 characters? I looked in our spool/news directory, >and there is a newsgroup there which translates to comp.laser-printers, >which is certainly longer than 14 characters! Are there news systems >which use a different naming convention than a.b.c -->.../spool/news/a/b/c? comp.laser-printers -> comp/laser.printers ....:...10....:...20 comp 4 laser.printers 14 Sorry, that's not correct, Kris. laser.printers is just exactly 14 characters long. Perhaps if you took off your shoes ;-> -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
brad@bradley.UUCP (01/08/88)
14 character limit on names has to do which system V sites running
notes (a machine is like that here).
Bradley Smith UUCP: {cepu,ihnp4,noao,uiucdcs}!bradley!brad
Text Processing ARPA: cepu!bradley!brad@seas.ucla.edu
Bradley University PH: (309) 677-2337
Peoria, IL 61625tlh@pbhyf.UUCP (Lee Hounshell) (01/09/88)
In article <1925@netsys.UUCP> len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose,NetSys) writes: ->In article <76@sialis.mn.org> rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) writes: ->>How about we solve this problem once and for all, and have someone ->>write a really hugely mutant news system that allows everyone to build ->>completely custom news group definitions before you ever see it? Now ->>that would mean that for person A, comp.sys.att would only contain 3b1 ->>and 3b2 articles. Everything else would just be vaporized. Of ->>course, he could always pump all the rec.arts.startrek articles about ->>Tasha Yar's bra, or lack thereof into comp.sys.att if he wanted to ->>also. -> -> Great attitude.. Just what we need on the net today. -> ->>Now, wouldn't that solve everyones problem, as well as be totally ->>ridiculous? -> -> Yes,you are. -> ->>(Obvious sarcasm terminated). :-) -> -> You stand self condemned."Obviously". Hey! Lighten up, huh? I thought the observation was pretty funny. After thinking about it, Robert's idea *would* solve everyones problems.. Lee Hounshell
vince@tc.fluke.COM (Craig Johnson) (01/09/88)
Several people have asked what the unix-pc.* groups are and why they are not available at all sites. Please refer to news.announce.newusers. There is an article there, periodically reposted (last posted about 1/1/88), titled "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies". A detailed explanation is given there. Last summer safari!dave posted to this group a list of known sites carrying the unix-pc groups. This was just before or very early in the time period when the fire sale was getting started. I can provide a copy of his posting though it is now rather out of date. Perhaps if Dave is listening, he will consider posting an updated version. You people that would like to push the unix-pc discussions out of this group should be made aware that Dave's list only includes 102 sites which carry the unix-pc groups. While I'm sure that number has grown some, this does not come close to reaching the number of people that standard USENET news and comp.sys.att do. I personally have been frustrated that no one can provide a link for me to use in the Seattle area. Until I can establish a connection (at minimal cost) I will have to continue to use this group. I'm sure there are hundreds more like myself out there who are in the same predicament. Meanwhile, I would prefer to see no change made to comp.sys.att. Craig V. Johnson ...!fluke!vince John Fluke Mfg. Co. Everett, WA
rich@oxtrap.UUCP (K. Richard Magill) (01/09/88)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? Hear, Here! But I think the problem has been solved by unix-pc.general. Why don't people use it? (You don't get it? ok. Why not?). rich.
kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) (01/12/88)
In article <2650@pbhyf.UUCP> tlh@pbhyf.UUCP (Lee Hounshell) writes: >In article <1925@netsys.UUCP> len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose,NetSys) writes: >->In article <76@sialis.mn.org> rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) writes: >->>How about we solve this problem once and for all, >-> >->>(Obvious sarcasm terminated). :-) >-> >-> You stand self condemned."Obviously". > >Hey! Lighten up, huh? >I thought the observation was pretty funny. Agreed. And I thought the *first* observation Robert made was also accurate, even if he was being funny. Different people read comp.sys.att to read about different combinations of machines. I'm looking for info about 3B2s, 3B1s, 6300s, and 6300+s. And I don't mind a bit picking up a bit of extra information about other machines - because sometimes it comes in handy. If the arbitron info (159 msgs/month) is accurate, that does seem a bit low to warrant a split - I mean, the mac groups have that many messages passing through in a DAY :-) Kathy Vincent ------> Home: {ihnp4|mtune|codas|ptsfa}!bakerst!kathy ------> AT&T: {ihnp4|mtune|burl}!wrcola!kathy
richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) (01/12/88)
> >No. There is no such 14 character limit on newsgroup names. An article > >in comp.sys.att is normally stored in a file named something like this: > > > > /usr/spool/news/comp/sys/att/123 > > > >So newsgroup names have the same restrictions as Unix filenames. > > > > WRONG! > Or, though it is true for "news" systems, it is not always true. The system > I read netnews on uses "notes", which instead stores the newsgroups in archived > files under a directory by the name of the newsgroup, which is limited to 14 > characters. There are many notes sites on the net. So.... the limitation > stands and is heeded before new group generation takes place. So sorry. As I remember it the fix for that problem/incompatibility in the notes software was distributed to the net several years ago. That's why you find so many newsgroups today with names greater than 14 chars long. Some examples: | news.software.b news.software.notes talk.religion.misc talk.religion.newage talk.politics.misc talk.politics.theory talk.politics.soviet talk.politics.arms-d talk.politics.mideast misc.consumers misc.consumers.house comp.binaries.atari.st comp.binaries.amiga comp.binaries.mac comp.binaries.ibm.pc This was all resolved a long time ago. I don't run notes here so I'm a little fuzzy on the details now, but the old 14 character name limit for newsgroups is no longer in force. If your news software still has this limitation you might want to check into getting a more recent version of the software. [followups to news.groups] -- Richard Foulk ...{dual,vortex,ihnp4}!islenet!richard Honolulu, Hawaii
kak@stc-auts.UUCP (Kris Kugel) (01/14/88)
In article <144800010@occrsh.ATT.COM>, rjd@occrsh.ATT.COM writes: > > > . . .Are there news systems > >which use a different naming convention than a.b.c -->.../spool/news/a/b/c? > > > The "notes" system uses the convention: > <spool directory>/<complete newsgroup name>/<4 files> > . . . One advantage of the system > is that it is less inode-intensive, one disadvantage is the administration of > the archives. > > Randy I understand that there are some people out there that are thinking of trying to do something like the notes user interface (which is nearly unbeatable) but uses the current news file structure. The challenges in doing this are in adding index files, possibly produced by rnews, so that all the articles don't have to be parsed everytime someone brings up "newsnotes", and fixing "expire" so that it dosn't delete active discussions. (or at least the root articles of the discussions) Anyone interested in more details should go look in "news.software.notes" (or (in 14 chars or less) "news.software." ;-)) Kris