kak@hico2.UUCP (Kris A. Kugel) (12/04/90)
Evidently I've been missing the articles supporting
comp.sys.att.3b1 instead of comp.sys.3b1.
I'd like to place a STRONG objection to comp.sys.att.3b1,
(or comp.sys.att.<anything>.)
1. AT&T did not manufacture the 3b1, convergent did.
2. AT&T does not support the 3b1. AT&T does not even release
some nice software packages that already exist and were written
for the 3b1. (there exists, for example, a troff package with
a 3b1 screen previewer that will even work with 8-pin or 24-pin
printers). Although hardware upgrades and other such exist,
they are entirely supplied by small-time independent organizations.
3. other convergent machines not sold under AT&T nameplate
are compatable with the 3b1. (a new machine is binary-compatable)
4. the 3b1 is not compatable with any other AT&T machine. There's
virtually no 3b1 bugs, disks, upgrades, graphics, etc. that
the 3b1 has in common with existing or past AT&T products.
(except those that it has in common with other system v machines,
which would be a bigger class than AT&T)
5. the 3b1 user's group is very tight, and well defined. If a
news site decided not to carry a high-volumen comp.sys.att,
I'd rather they make a separate decision on whether to carry
comp.sys.3b1.
6. as was mentioned before, there are already exist groups with
names like comp.sys.commadore.amiga. comp.sys.3b1 cannot be
ruled out by lack of precidence.
Kris A. Kugel
( 908 ) 842-2707
{uunet,rutgers,att}!westmark!hico2!kak
{daver,ditka,zorch}!hico2!kak
internet: kak@hico2.westmark.comgst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo) (12/06/90)
In <459@hico2.UUCP> kak@hico2.UUCP (Kris A. Kugel) writes: > I'd like to place a STRONG objection to comp.sys.att.3b1, > (or comp.sys.att.<anything>.) I find Kris' arguments to be very well-stated and compelling, and therefore would like to go on record as supporting the proposal to make the upcoming vote be about creating new newsgroups *without* any mention of AT&T: comp.sys.3b1 comp.sources.3b1 -- Gary S. Trujillo gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us Somerville, Massachusetts {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
andy@cs.caltech.edu (Andy Fyfe) (12/06/90)
Personally, I find it incongruous that we can have a consensus that the newsgroup does not belong under comp.sys.att, because the "att" is inappropriate, yet be virtually unanimously agreed that "3b1" is the best name for the group -- an AT&T designation for the machine. It may be that Convergent manufactured the machines for AT&T. So why not "comp.sys.convergent.s4"? It's also true that AT&T no longer sells the beast, and support is not ideal. These things happen -- no machine is likely to be produced and supported forever. So why not "comp.sys.orphans.3b1"? The 3b1 is in most ways a unique machine. With time it will fade away and disappear -- it is, realistically, the first and last of its line. Does a single, particular machine (equivalent systems notwithstanding) really belong at the top of the comp.sys hierarchy? I'd say "no". Andy Fyfe andy@cs.caltech.edu
emcguire@ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire) (12/08/90)
In article <1990Dec6.092904.2028@nntp-server.caltech.edu> andy@cs.caltech.edu (Andy Fyfe) writes: The 3b1 is in most ways a unique machine. With time it will fade away and disappear -- it is, realistically, the first and last of its line. Does a single, particular machine (equivalent systems notwithstanding) really belong at the top of the comp.sys hierarchy? I'd say "no". You don't think the machine is very important, and you conclude that it ought therefore to be correspondingly lower in the hierarchy? We're not hiring someone here, we're naming a newsgroup. We don't choose hierarchy levels in comp.sys based on how prestigious the machine is. All that is needed is to be relevant to comp.sys and to have sufficient traffic to justify a group. If the group dies in a few years, it'll be removed. Simple as that. -- peace. -- Ed "Over here, Bones! This man's dying!" "Damn it, Jim! I'm a doctor, not a . . . What did you say?"
andy@cs.caltech.edu (Andy Fyfe) (12/08/90)
In article <1990Dec7.174855.23824@ccad.uiowa.edu> emcguire@ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire) writes: >You don't think the machine is very important, and you conclude that it >ought therefore to be correspondingly lower in the hierarchy? Not quite. The 3b1 is a single machine for all practical purposes. It is not a line of related computers. It hasn't been produced for years. It's unlikely to ever have a successor. This makes it fundamentally different from, say, a Mac, NeXT, or Amiga. The 3b1 is a particular AT&T machine. The question is why is the 3b1 so very important that is should be place at the top of the hierarchy, rather than under comp.sys.att? Why bother to have a heirarchy at all if every individual machine can go directly under comp.sys? Andy Fyfe andy@cs.caltech.edu
ignatz@chinet.chi.il.us (Dave Ihnat) (12/08/90)
Clear, concise, and eloquent. Glad I waited to 'yea' the comp.sys.3b1 move on the heels of this explanation, rather than adding my own $0.02 in my more muddy and rambling style... Dave Ihnat ignatz@homebru.chi.il.us (preferred return address) ignatz@chinet.chi.il.us