eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) (01/29/89)
There's a move afoot to create a group for users of AT-clone 386 boxes running
under UNIX. I think this is a good idea; I have thought there was a need for
this ever since I was recruited one of the original three co-moderators of
comp.unix.microport.
Previous similar proposals have all foundered amidst flame wars about the
right way to name things. This may happen again; I hope it doesn't.
The name 'comp.unix.i386' isn't good enough. Dave Mack was unnecessarily nasty
but he was right. We don't want the Roadrunner people here, not because we
dislike them but because the (large) constituency runs AT-bus machines and
bus structure is an important discriminator. In fact, given the state of
standardization efforts, it's *more* important than the vendor or UNIX flavor
(which is why names like comp.unix.sysv.i386.etcetera miss the point).
That suggests a solution. Call it
comp.unix.at386
or (if we buy market-leader Compaq's terminology)
comp.unix.isa386
I think the former is preferable, but could live with the latter. But let's
get a consensus on one of these!
--
Eric S. Raymond (the mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
Email: eric@snark.uu.net CompuServe: [72037,2306]
Post: 22 S. Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355 Phone: (215)-296-5718rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (01/29/89)
In article <ek3ic#1KMWg0=eric@snark.uu.net> eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >That suggests a solution. Call it > > comp.unix.at386 PS/2's also run the same (or similar) versions of 386 Unixes that us AT bus people do. I don't mind the roadrunner people being here if they want to be here instead of comp.sys.sun. In fact, hearing about roadrunners would be useful. This group isn't just for vendor flaming. Who knows, roadrunners may even become an affordable alternative. We are only going to get one group (if that!) so lets stick with comp.unix.i386. If the volume warrants, the group can get split later (unless UNIX 5.4 unifies the whole 386 camp?). -- Rick Richardson | JetRoff "di"-troff to LaserJet Postprocessor|uunet!pcrat!dry2 PC Research,Inc.| Mail: uunet!pcrat!jetroff; For anon uucp do:|for Dhrystone 2 uunet!pcrat!rick| uucp jetroff!~jetuucp/file_list ~nuucp/. |submission forms. jetroff Wk2200-0300,Sa,Su ACU {2400,PEP} 12013898963 "" \d\r\d ogin: jetuucp
rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) (01/30/89)
In article <ek3ic#1KMWg0=eric@snark.uu.net>, eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes: > The name 'comp.unix.i386' isn't good enough. Dave Mack was unnecessarily nasty > but he was right. We don't want the Roadrunner people here, not because we > dislike them but because the (large) constituency runs AT-bus machines and > bus structure is an important discriminator. In fact, given the state of > standardization efforts, it's *more* important than the vendor or UNIX flavor > (which is why names like comp.unix.sysv.i386.etcetera miss the point). > Not True. The Sun RoadRunners have an AT-bus. In any event, SunOS for the 386i is -- guess what -- UNIX V.4 (or will be within 6 months). As a practical matter I'm confident that the Sun folks will continue to use comp.sys.sun for their problems. Let's just create the group and avoid the meta-discussion this time.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/31/89)
I said I wouldn't get involved in this. I lied. The bus is a red herring. In article <ek3ic#1KMWg0=eric@snark.uu.net>, eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes: > The name 'comp.unix.i386' isn't good enough. Dave Mack was unnecessarily nasty > but he was right. We don't want the Roadrunner people here, not because we > dislike them but because the (large) constituency runs AT-bus machines and > bus structure is an important discriminator. But the Sun 386i *does* have an AT bus and can use AT cards. It's not the primary bus, true, but it's quite conceivable that certain types of 386i discussion would be at home... and it's not like the Sun and Sequent folks are going to flood the vast majority of 386 users. > comp.unix.at386 And the PS/2 people are running very similar UNIXes and don't have AT (or ISA) busses in them. They should certainly not be excluded. If the load grows too heavy, you can subdivide the group again. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.
dave@norsat.UUCP (Dave Binette) (01/31/89)
In article <ek3ic#1KMWg0=eric@snark.uu.net> eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >That suggests a solution. Call it > > comp.unix.at386 I like it! comp.unix.at386 Other architectures are not of interest to me at all, at least not in this context. I'd get a lot more use out of this group if it were restricted to SCO only but i suppose that is unreasonable. When I need machine comparisons I can generally find some info in trade magazines and product reviews. What I would like from this group is reading comments about new releases of OS and utility software by real users.
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (01/31/89)
In article <ek3ic#1KMWg0=eric@snark.uu.net> eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >There's a move afoot to create a group for users of AT-clone 386 boxes running >under UNIX. I think this is a good idea; I have thought there was a need for >this ever since I was recruited one of the original three co-moderators of >comp.unix.microport. > >Previous similar proposals have all foundered amidst flame wars about the >right way to name things. This may happen again; I hope it doesn't. > >The name 'comp.unix.i386' isn't good enough. Dave Mack was unnecessarily nasty >but he was right. We don't want the Roadrunner people here, not because we >dislike them but because the (large) constituency runs AT-bus machines and >bus structure is an important discriminator. In fact, given the state of >standardization efforts, it's *more* important than the vendor or UNIX flavor >(which is why names like comp.unix.sysv.i386.etcetera miss the point). > >That suggests a solution. Call it > > comp.unix.at386 After all the flak I've gotten about my original posting, I'm a little hesitant to post this, but I'm afraid the Roadrunner *is* an AT-bus machine. It has three AT slots and one XT slot. How about comp.unix.386-clone? -- Dave "The Cinder" Mack
rfrye@netxcom.UUCP (Rob Frye) (01/31/89)
In article <ek3ic#1KMWg0=eric@snark.uu.net> eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes: > comp.unix.at386 I think Eric hit it on the head! Tomorrow is Feb. 1 -- let's get those votes goin'! :-) -- Rob Frye NetExpress Communications, Inc. Phone: (703)749-2234 1953 Gallows Road, Suite 300 uucp: uunet!netxcom!rfrye Vienna, VA 22180
ulmo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Brad Allen) (02/05/89)
Since SCO is big enough, comp.unix.sco seems reasonable. The other various *nix's need their own general groups, I guess. But I think it would be a good idea to give SCO its own group. brad allen <ulmo@ssyx.ucsc.edu> [no affiliation with UCSC or SCO, but I live here and use their stuff]