vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) (08/20/88)
In <1988Aug19.122042.19070@ateng.uucp> chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg): # comp.unix.xenix Microsoft Xenix and its derivatives # comp.unix.sysv.i286 AT&T Unix System V for the '286 # comp.unix.sysv.i386 AT&T Unix System V for the '386 and comp.unix.microport (destroyed) This is what I proposed in my last message; Chip's proposal was in response to a different article. I think this means that two people have the same proposal. Which, in turn, makes me want to ask: who wants to collect votes and try to keep track of dissenting / alternate opinions? I don't want the job. But I'll coordinate the selection of someone else to do it. If you want to manage the voting process on the above referendum, please send me mail. DO NOT SEND ME YOUR VOTES. I don't want them. WE ARE NOT VOTING ON THIS YET. [Again I'll say: my employer doesn't know I'm doing this, or (I assume) care] -- Paul Vixie Digital Equipment Corporation Work: vixie@dec.com Play: paul@vixie.UUCP Western Research Laboratory uunet!decwrl!vixie uunet!vixie!paul Palo Alto, California, USA +1 415 853 6600 +1 415 864 7013
john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) (08/23/88)
In article <62@volition.dec.com>, vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes: > In <1988Aug19.122042.19070@ateng.uucp> chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg): > # comp.unix.xenix Microsoft Xenix and its derivatives > # comp.unix.sysv.i286 AT&T Unix System V for the '286 > # comp.unix.sysv.i386 AT&T Unix System V for the '386 > and comp.unix.microport (destroyed) If we're going to do the .sysv. thing, let's at least stay consistent within the USENET name space, and use .sys5., which has precedent in comp.bugs.sys5. I still feel that this is going to cause problems in the near future, when plenty of people can rightly claim that Xenix/386 is "AT&T Unix System V for the '386". Probably the best way to handle voting on this is to first put up for vote two or three naming proposals. The one that gets a plurality of votes will then be put up for the "real" voting, requiring the 100 more yes than no votes. Hopefully, the "losers" of the first vote will still vote yes for the second vote, so we can present a unified front to the Guardians of the Namespace. So, I'd like comments on which naming schemes to include in the first vote. There's the one quoted at the beginning of this article, with or without s/sysv/sys5/, and my favorite: comp.unix.i286 UNIX on systems using the Intel '286 CPU comp.unix.i386 UNIX on systems using the Intel '386 CPU (delete comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.microport) and another popular one: comp.unix.intel UNIX on systems using Intel CPUs (delete comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.microport) Are there still any other serious contenders, or is everyone sufficiently happy with one of these to start voting between them? > I think this means that two people have the same proposal. Which, in turn, > makes me want to ask: who wants to collect votes and try to keep track of > dissenting / alternate opinions? If there are no serious objections to the two-stage voting process, I'll collect the votes. [vix: I'm posting instead of sending you mail because I want reactions to the two-step proposal.] Comments? -- John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US SMART HOUSE L.P. uunet!jetson!john (old uucp) +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net (old internet)
vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) (08/23/88)
In article <109@jetson.UPMA.MD.US> john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) writes:
# > # comp.unix.xenix Microsoft Xenix and its derivatives
# > # comp.unix.sysv.i286 AT&T Unix System V for the '286
# > # comp.unix.sysv.i386 AT&T Unix System V for the '386
# > and comp.unix.microport (destroyed)
#
# If we're going to do the .sysv. thing, let's at least stay consistent
# within the USENET name space, and use .sys5., which has precedent in
# comp.bugs.sys5.
So moved. I agree. I hadn't thought of this.
# I still feel that this is going to cause problems in the near future,
# when plenty of people can rightly claim that Xenix/386 is "AT&T Unix
# System V for the '386".
The Xenix people won't believe this until they see it. If there's a lot
of cross-posting and the two product lines truly merge, we can delete the
Xenix group.
# Probably the best way to handle voting on this is to first put up for
# vote two or three naming proposals. The one that gets a plurality of
# votes will then be put up for the "real" voting, requiring the 100 [...]
This sounds good. Since you are volunteering to coordinate the first and
second votes on this issue, please think carefully about whether you want
too much more netwide discussion. If you are taking a vote, then by all
means take one -- by mail. Ask people to send you nominations, and let us
all know how it comes out. Then ask for votes among the top three schemes
that get nominated.
--
Paul Vixie
Digital Equipment Corporation Work: vixie@dec.com Play: paul@vixie.UUCP
Western Research Laboratory uunet!decwrl!vixie uunet!vixie!paul
Palo Alto, California, USA +1 415 853 6600 +1 415 864 7013greg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Greg Laskin) (08/23/88)
In article <109@jetson.UPMA.MD.US> john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) writes: >In article <62@volition.dec.com>, vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes: >> In <1988Aug19.122042.19070@ateng.uucp> chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg): >> # comp.unix.xenix Microsoft Xenix and its derivatives >> # comp.unix.sysv.i286 AT&T Unix System V for the '286 >> # comp.unix.sysv.i386 AT&T Unix System V for the '386 >> and comp.unix.microport (destroyed) > >If we're going to do the .sysv. thing, let's at least stay consistent >within the USENET name space, and use .sys5., which has precedent in >comp.bugs.sys5. > >I still feel that this is going to cause problems in the near future, >when plenty of people can rightly claim that Xenix/386 is "AT&T Unix >System V for the '386". > >Probably the best way to handle voting on this is to first put up for >vote two or three naming proposals. The one that gets a plurality of > > comp.unix.i286 UNIX on systems using the Intel '286 CPU > comp.unix.i386 UNIX on systems using the Intel '386 CPU > (delete comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.microport) > >and another popular one: > > comp.unix.intel UNIX on systems using Intel CPUs > (delete comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.microport) > >Are there still any other serious contenders, or is everyone >sufficiently happy with one of these to start voting between them? > No. I object. Strenuously. Xenix is as unique a product as aux and ultrix. It is not Intel specific. Voting on wholesale renaming proposals randomly suggested in an effort to accomplish some great organizational goal will be less productive than voting on the creation of specific groups and letting those that you are not particularly interested in die for lack of interest. For example, I would blindly vote against any proposal that deleted comp.unix.xenix regardless of how well it organized the universe for '386 users, Intel users and the like, whereas I would be inclined to vote in favor of a proposal to create a specific comp.unix.i386 group or some such. -- Greg Laskin greg@gryphon.CTS.COM <any backbone site>!gryphon!greg
fred@cdin-1.uucp (Fred Rump) (08/23/88)
In article <109@jetson.UPMA.MD.US>, john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) writes: > In article <62@volition.dec.com>, vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes: > > In <1988Aug19.122042.19070@ateng.uucp> chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg): > > # comp.unix.xenix Microsoft Xenix and its derivatives > > # comp.unix.sysv.i286 AT&T Unix System V for the '286 > > # comp.unix.sysv.i386 AT&T Unix System V for the '386 > > and comp.unix.microport (destroyed) > [ If we're going to do the .sysv. thing, let's at least stay consistent [ within the USENET name space, and use .sys5., which has precedent in [ comp.bugs.sys5. [ [ I still feel that this is going to cause problems in the near future, [ when plenty of people can rightly claim that Xenix/386 is "AT&T Unix [ System V for the '386". [ [ Probably the best way to handle voting on this is to first put up for [ vote two or three naming proposals. The one that gets a plurality of [ votes will then be put up for the "real" voting, requiring the 100 [ more yes than no votes. Hopefully, the "losers" of the first vote [ will still vote yes for the second vote, so we can present a unified [ front to the Guardians of the Namespace. [ [ If there are no serious objections to the two-stage voting process, [ I'll collect the votes. [vix: I'm posting instead of sending you mail [ because I want reactions to the two-step proposal.] [ [ Comments? [ [ -- [ John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US [ SMART HOUSE L.P. uunet!jetson!john (old uucp) [ +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net (old internet) I like what you have to say. Just not sure whether you want mail or news follow-ups. I'll go with your first proposal. Fred Rump -- *************************** * This is a witty line. * * Please disregard it. * ***************************
chip@ateng.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (08/23/88)
Listen, folks: I've changed my mind. Try this on for size:
comp.unix.sys5-intel AT&T Unix System V on Intel processors
comp.unix.xenix Microsoft Xenix and derivatives
Current volume does not warrant a '286-'386 split. So, essentially, I'm
suggesting that we replace comp.unix.microport with comp.unix.sys5-intel.
Let's just do this and get it over with, hmm?
--
Chip Salzenberg <chip@ateng.uu.net> or <uunet!ateng!chip>
A T Engineering My employer may or may not agree with me.
You make me wanna break the laws of time and space
You make me wanna eat porkjohn@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) (08/24/88)
In article <5824@gryphon.CTS.COM>, greg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Greg Laskin) writes: > In article <109@jetson.UPMA.MD.US> john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) writes: > >Are there still any other serious contenders, or is everyone > >sufficiently happy with one of these to start voting between them? > No. I object. Strenuously. > Xenix is as unique a product as aux and ultrix. It is not Intel specific. > [....] > For example, I would blindly vote against any proposal that deleted > comp.unix.xenix [....] > '386 users, Intel users and the like, whereas I would be inclined to > vote in favor of a proposal to create a specific comp.unix.i386 > group or some such. But Greg, one of the three contenders I mentioned keeps comp.unix.xenix and creates a specific comp.unix.i386 group. It sounds like you're really objecting to two of the proposed contenders for the "real" vote, so vote for that particular one once we decide on the contenders. I suppose what I'm trying to do here is similar to the Democratic convention: get people to vote among a number of contenders, then get all the supporters of any of them to vote for the one with the most support, since they all feel that it's better than the alternative (the Republicans or leaving comp.unix.{xenix,microport} as they are). I don't think voting piecemeal is going to work - what if the vote turned out as "yes - add comp.unix.i286, yes - delete comp.unix.microport, no - don't add comp.unix.i386"? If you don't like the final package candidate, vote no. (Kind of like voting no to Bush because you don't like Quayle.) Are you with me, Greg? -- John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US SMART HOUSE L.P. uunet!jetson!john (old uucp) +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net (old internet)
bak@csd-v.UUCP (Bruce A. Kern) (08/25/88)
In article <1988Aug23.120758.9051@ateng.uucp> chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >Current volume does not warrant a '286-'386 split. So, essentially, I'm >suggesting that we replace comp.unix.microport with comp.unix.sys5-intel. Except for this silliness, the current volume doesn't even warrent a news group. -- Bruce A. Kern 1-203-270-0399 Computer Systems Design Voice: 730 - 1700 Mon. thru Fri. 29 High Rock Road Data: All other times Sandy Hook, Ct. 06482