[news.admin] 630MTG Discussions

stox@ttrde.UUCP (Kenneth P. Stox) (01/28/89)

Well folks, the comp.terminals.tty5620 newsgroup seems to have 
VERY little traffic in it. However, a great deal of discussion
has taken place as of late regarding the 630MTG. 
Therefore, I would like to propose the following:

	1) rmgroup comp.terminals.tty5620

	2) Well, I was going to suggest a new 
	newsgroup like comp.terminals.spiffy  :-),
	but an existing newsgroup, comp.terminals.bitgraph,
	looks like it is both generic and in place.

So, let's get that 630 traffic over into comp.terminals.bitgraph,
and out of comp.unix.wizards.


=================================================================
Ken Stox				630 Development Group
AT&T Bell Laboratories			Skokie, Illinois
att!ttrde!stox
=================================================================

gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (01/28/89)

In article <834@ttrde.UUCP> stox@ttrde.UUCP (Kenneth P. Stox) writes:
-	2) Well, I was going to suggest a new 
-	newsgroup like comp.terminals.spiffy  :-),
-	but an existing newsgroup, comp.terminals.bitgraph,
-	looks like it is both generic and in place.
-So, let's get that 630 traffic over into comp.terminals.bitgraph,
-and out of comp.unix.wizards.

I think comp.terminals.bitgraph was supposed to be for the BBN
BitGraph terminal only.  Probably there should be a
	comp.terminals.bitmap
for generic Blit-like terminal discussions.

csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (01/29/89)

>In article <834@ttrde.UUCP> stox@ttrde.UUCP (Kenneth P. Stox) writes:
>[rmgroup comp.terminals.tty5620.]
>So, let's get that 630 traffic over into comp.terminals.bitgraph,
>and out of comp.unix.wizards.

In article <9533@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>I think comp.terminals.bitgraph was supposed to be for the BBN
>BitGraph terminal only.  Probably there should be a
>	comp.terminals.bitmap
>for generic Blit-like terminal discussions.

Doug is correct, of course; but what both of you are forgetting is that
comp.terminals.tty5620 and .bitgraph are both inet groups. Most sites out
in UUCP land don't get either group. So neither is particularly useful.
This may also account for why no one is using them.

There has been a lot of AT&T 600-series terminal discussions in plain ol'
comp.terminals. That group has very low traffic, so I see no reason not to
use it.

<csg>