vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) (08/24/88)
Apparently, we have a slight lag in news propagation. It is now a well-established and agreed-upon fact that we must keep comp.unix.xenix around because there are so many non-Intel Xenix machines around (and because it is widely believed that Xenix on Intel machines will always be different from UNIX on Intel machines, but let's not argue about that, it doesn't matter, we've already decided this issue.) John Plocher is either not reading my articles, or he is deliberately waiting for someone else to raise a point similar to one I've made and then arguing against the inferior implementation of my idea. Groups can be renamed, and the way I want to accomplish that with the comp.unix.microport group is: slowly, gradually, passively. In any case, this has nothing to do with comp.unix.xenix, which we are going to have to keep. Please, let's all stop talking about this, it's a closed and decided issue. Someone is trying to collect proposals. Post yours or mail it. Mine, for the record, is: comp.unix.sys5.286 (for V/AT and similars) comp.unix.sys5.386 (for 386/ix and derivatives) comp.unix.xenix (for Xenix on all manner of CPUs) comp.unix.microport (wait for volume to fall off, then delete it. Post messages to it regularly telling of the existence of comp.unix.sys5.* I will do this.) No matter what happens with the Xenix/UNIX merge, the result will fit into this scheme. No matter what happens with the SunOS/UNIX merge, the results will fit into this scheme. No matter what happens anywhere, UNIX on the 286 will always be fundamentally bizarre and uninteresting to people with 386 machines, so this scheme will hold out. If someone with a reputation for solidity wants to moderate either of the comp.unix.sys5 groups, please contact me by e-mail. I think these groups should be moderated, but I'm not willing to do it myself so I can't propose it. -- 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
vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) (08/25/88)
Ooops!
In article <78@volition.dec.com>, I wrote:
# [My proposal,] for the record, is:
#
# comp.unix.sys5.286 (for V/AT and similars)
# comp.unix.sys5.386 (for 386/ix and derivatives)
# comp.unix.xenix (for Xenix on all manner of CPUs)
# comp.unix.microport (wait for volume to fall off,
# then delete it. Post messages
# to it regularly telling of the
# existence of comp.unix.sys5.* I
# will do this.)
I meant:
comp.unix.sys5.i286 (for V/AT and similars)
comp.unix.sys5.i386 (for 386/ix and derivatives)
You can't have totally numeric group name components. All my previous
proposals have had "i"'s, and this one was meant to as well.
--
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 7013howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) (08/25/88)
In article <78@volition.dec.com>, vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes: > > Someone is trying to collect proposals. Post yours or mail it. Mine, > for the record, is: > > comp.unix.sys5.286 (for V/AT and similars) > comp.unix.sys5.386 (for 386/ix and derivatives) > comp.unix.xenix (for Xenix on all manner of CPUs) > comp.unix.microport (wait for volume to fall off, > then delete it. Post messages > to it regularly telling of the > existence of comp.unix.sys5.* I > will do this.) Well I can agree and be very happy with the group names listed above, but I wonder if we need the .sys5 in the middle of the name ?? Why not for example just call it comp.unix.286, instead of comp.unix.sys5.286.. > If someone with a reputation for solidity wants to moderate either of > the comp.unix.sys5 groups, please contact me by e-mail. I think these > groups should be moderated, but I'm not willing to do it myself so I > can't propose it. This idea I don't like, as I don't believe there have been any problems in the various UNIX groups. I remember when comp.unix.microport was first started, and it was moderated. I as well as many others would never take the time to post anything to the group, and needless to say the amount of good net activity was almost nil. If you don't believe this, then just make comp.unix.microport a moderated group, and watch how everybody moves to comp.unix.xenix for the various microport issues (As if this still dosen't happen :-). Just figured since this is the big topic of discussion I would inject my $.02 worth... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP/SMTP : howardl@wb3ffv | Howard D. Leadmon PACKET : WB3FFV @ W3ITM | Fast Computer Service, Inc. IP Address: 44.60.0.1 | P.O. Box 171 Telephone : (301)-335-2206 | Chase, MD 21027-0171