peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (05/02/90)
In article <217@pcssc.UUCP> dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes: > I was not able to set up a user called no on my Xenix/386 system because > it is only a 2 character user name. So do what other people have done and create "vote-yes" and "vote-no". > After posting my first call to votes I was informed by a opponent to this > group that uu.net is intended to be use only by internal machines to > uunet. Let's call a spade a spade. I sent you that mail because I just receieved a draft of a form letter from UUNET. The letter basically said "The .uu.net domain is only for UUNET machines. At some point in the future we will no longer forward mail to this address". I thought you might want to know about that ahead of time. > Our sight is registered and either method seems to get here > fine. If your site is registered, then you should be using the .com entry. I will be doing the same as soon as our domain registration comes through. I wish the folks at UUNET had been a bit more on the ball about this. Apparently they changed their policy a while back and forgot to tell anyone. In any case they're taking care of the problem and all UUNET customers should be informed pretty soon. > Why comp.unix.sco instead of comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386? > There are currently several groups that SCO users are welcome to post to > Two of these groups are comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386. The > descriptions of the groups read as follows: > comp.unix.i386 - Versions of Unix running on Intel 80386-bases boxes > comp.unix.xenix - Discussions about the Xenix OS. > SCO users are welcome to post to either group. They are intended for > operating system related question. Posting not regarding the OS are may > also be posted here but are usually inappropriate in this groups. What other postings would one be making? SCO is an operating systems house. Applications software that runs under SCO UNIX also runs under all the other UNIX boxes out there, and is just as appropriate (or inappropriate) in .i386 as in the suggested .sco group. > There are also other groups that can also be used for non-OS discussions. Make that *should*. What subject matter is it that is appropriate for .sco but not for .i386, .xenix, or (say) comp.databases? > The intention of comp.unix.sco is to have one groups that will encompass > all of the above for SCO users. *Which* SCO users? Why should SCO Xenix users have to plow through UNIX junk? Why should SCO UNIX users care about Xenix? > Why are so many people against this group? Because it's a bad idea. > Most the negative posting are from the same people that feel that they > need to express their opinions over and over again. The same might be said of the supporters of comp.unix.sco. When people keep posting messages containing the same invalid arguments again and again, it becomes necessary to refute them again and again. I'd also like to point out that continued politicking after the call for votes is considered inappropriate. Discussion in news.groups is one thing, but blatant requests for votes broadcast all over the net are a no-no. I got .i386 passed without any such shenanigans. If .sco is a good idea, you will be able to do the same. > They have various > reasons to be against this group but in general they do not want to change > the way thing are. Right. That's why we're calling for a wholesale redesign of the comp.unix hierarchy. We're so scared of change we need to change everything to prove it. Finally, directing followups to "poster" is a cheap trick. Politicking for a group after the call for votes is a cheap trick. This message was crossposted to comp.unix.xenix, comp.unix.i386, comp.unix.questions, comp.unix.wizards, and news.groups. What? You forgot comp.std.unix, comp.misc, comp.arch, and half a dozen other vaguely relevant groups... -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net> / \ 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> \_.--._/ Disclaimer: commercial solicitation by email to this address v is acceptable.
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (05/02/90)
[Followups to news.groups, not "poster". There's still discussion to do...] According to dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust): >In this new group discussions, questions, bug reports, ect. >regarding ALL SCO products can take place. This proposed charter is both too narrow (only one vendor: SCO) and too broad (all sorts of software: operating systems, word processing, databases, etc, etc). >Is SCO in favor of this group? Who cares? Usenet doesn't belong to SCO. >The following is the email I received from Doug Michels at SCO: Namedropping will *not* help. >Most the negative posting are from the same people that feel that >they need to express their opinions over and over again. Mr. Armbrust here presumes to explain my motives as well as the motives of other people who object to comp.unix.sco. In the process, he has provided a real-life example of the pot calling the kettle black. >They have various reasons to be against this group but in general >they do not want to change the way thing are. This assertion is false. I, for example, am currently collecting opinions on a general reorganization of the comp.unix.* hierarchy. I am doing so because several groups are badly named (comp.unix.i386, comp.unix.microport), and because there are some obvious groups (comp.unix.admin, comp.unix.misc) that could be created. Given this activity, I hardly fit Mr. Armbrust's description of a reactionary. [Note, however, that the comp.unix reorganization has been put on hold until the comp.unix.sco issue has been resolved. I do not wish my proposals to become enmeshed in the comp.unix.sco debacle.] >The posting you see do not reflect the general opinions of the >net-users. Now Mr. Armbrust is a mind reader? I think not. >You will see this posting torn apart and criticized. You got that right, Bo. >This use-net is a great example of democracy in action. Mr. Armbrust does not understand the Usenet at all. A democracy is, ideally, a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Usenet is a network of the owners, by the administrators and for the users. In a democracy, the people are the eventual basis of all power. Power in Usenet comes from owning and/or administering a machine. The difference is obvious to anyone familiar with Usenet. +-------------------------------------------------+ | Comp.unix.sco must go. This is non-negotiable. | +-------------------------------------------------+ The arguments against comp.unix.sco are not as easily dismissed as Mr. Armbrust would wish. Comp.unix.sco would be a confused mix of operating systems, development systems and applications with only one thing in common: the "SCO" name on the boxes they came in. This is the Usenet of the future? If comp.unix.i386 is too crowded, there are more intelligent ways to split it. If particular SCO applications have no appropriate newsgroups, such can be created to cover broad application classes. But comp.unix.sco is *not* the answer. I urge: Just say "Nay" to comp.unix.sco. The vote adresses are <nay@pcssc.com> (Nay) or <yes@pcssc.com> (Yes). -- Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT <chip%tct@ateng.com>, <uunet!ateng!tct!chip>
terryl@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM (05/08/90)
+In article <217@pcssc.UUCP> dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes:
+Why nay@pcssc.com instead of no@pcssc.com?
+I was not able to set up a user called no on my Xenix/386 system because
+it is only a 2 character user name. I had assumed that having a alias of
+2 characters would pose the same problem. This is not the case as had
+been pointed out to me by other users. I have now set up a forwarding
+alias for no and for those users that want to send mail to no@pcssc.com
+instead of nay@pcssc.com you can now do this. If you would rather send
+your yes vote to yea@pcssc.com instead of yes@pcssc.com you can do this
+also. I hope these changes will resolve the objects to nay although my
+instructions were clear how to vote. I was quite surprised that so many
+people objected to my clear instructions.
Not having ANY experience with Xenix, but quite a bit of experience with
UNIX in general, I find this very difficult to believe. Why should Xenix care
how many letters are in a login name????
+Why was pcssc.uu.net was changed to pcssc.com?
+Why comp.unix.sco instead of biz.sco?
+Why comp.unix.sco instead of comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386?
You've read these questions and answers man times before; no need to waste
bandwidth repeating them.
+Whose idea is this group SCO or Dave Armbrust?
+Is SCO in favor of this group?
Irrelevant questions and answers; in fact, the second question should be
tossed out as "biased".
+Is this group then intended to make up for SCO deficiencies in support?
+
+No, I beleive SCO's support is second to none in the industry. But as is
+so often the case with support, better can be provided. I believe that SCO
+is interested in providing the best support that they can. This group is
+just another way for them to improve on what they currently offer.
Hmm, it seems to me, Mr. Armbrust, that you're doing a little backpaddling
here. In a previous post, someone mentioned that "SCO's support org does have
some problems" (slightly paraphrased, but the gist is the same).
+Why are so many people against this group?
+
+Most the negative posting are from the same people that feel that they
+need to express their opinions over and over again. They have various
+reasons to be against this group but in general they do not want to change
+the way thing are. The posting you see do not reflect the general
+opinions of the net-users. When the votes are counted each person only
+gets one vote but there is no limit to how many posting of their opinions
+can be made. Only the votes will determine if this group is formed.
You mean, just like you've done how many times now??? Seems like that's
"the pot calling the kettle black", IMHO.
+You will see this posting torn apart and criticized. You will see a few
+stand up in my defence. This is their right to do this and I do not want
+to restrict that right. This use-net is a great example of democracy in
+action. Everyone can express their opinions freely but in the end it is
+the votes that count. But as in any free society what you hear on the
+'news' is not always the opinions of the general community.
Haven't seen much defense, Mr. Armbrust, but one thing I have seen:
MANY people have raised valid criticisms against this group, along with many
valid questions that you have chosen to ignore. Why is this????
+Is it not improper for the vote taker to be so obviously for this group?
+Sounds good, when will this group be formed?
+Why don't I just wait for the results from other net users?
+What if I am against this group?
Again, irrelevant questions, and again, the second question should be
thrown out as "biased".
So, I ask again, Mr. Armbrust: How about answering some of the questions
people have put forth here on the net????
Also, Mr. Armbrust is still doing the old "Followup-To: poster" trick.
I really have to question Mr. Armbrust's motives in all this when he is delib-
erately trying to stifle open discussion.
BTW, when I submitted my "nay" vote, I got back a canned e-mail letter
that was (probably) the previous post Mr. Armbrust sent to the net. I then got
another e-mail letter about a week later saying my "no" vote has been recorded.
I am really beginning to question the way things are being handled, and if you
are at all interested in the outcome of the vote, make sure your vote got tab-
ulated correctly.
Terry Laskodi
of
Tektronix