thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (11/29/90)
das@trac2000.ueci.com (David Snyder) in <942@trac2000.ueci.com> writes:
I agree 100%. We MUST get rid of the reference to "unix-pc".
Hmmm. One person during our AT&T Users' Group meeting this evening shared
his thoughts about the matter, and he presented a compelling case to NOT
give up the "UNIXPC" name because then the 8088/8086/80286/80386/80486 users
would snatch up "UNIXPC" for themselves and then suffer massive infusions
of cross-postings by US, whose machines are labelled "AT&T UNIXPC" ! :-)
There are some things about which everyone seems in agreement:
1) some major backbone sites such as H-P Labs (Palo Alto) do NOT forward the
present unix-pc.* hierarchy, causing distribution problems for many. As
to what they do forward, much material has absolutely NO benefit for H-P
(such as the alt.sex.pictures, the humor groups, etc.), so the statements
attributed to their site administrator are not self-consistent. Go figure.
As Brian suggested, some sites are simply NOT administered properly.
2) though there are many generous offers providing feeds of unix-pc.*, for
many potential recipients that offer entails long-distance calls ($$$).
3) mainstream newsgroups appear to be forwarded anyplace with no problems.
4) the problem is NOT limited to unix-pc.* I've received numerous emails
over the past 12 months asking about the "u3b.*" newsgroups (for 3B2s),
the presence of which I only casually mentioned in other postings. So
THEY are having distribution problems, too. The way I see it, people
who aren't receiving newsgroups don't know what they're missing and thus
don't complain. Kinda reminds me of how certain "Eastern bloc" countries
would control their people by keeping them ignorant. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.
And there some things about which the opinions are divided:
1) the "name" of the new newsgroup(s)
2) the hierarchy of the new group
3) the location (and possible moderation) of source postings of the new group
Now for some of MY opinions:
1) the number of installed machines and whether they are in current production
is irrelevant. There are more 3B1/UNIXPC/PC7300 systems in the world today
than NeXT machines, yet the NeXT users have their comp.sys.next newsgroup
because they shared an interest, petitioned for a group, and voted it in.
I see a VERY large (and GROWING) interest in the UNIXPC and that interest
needs to be served by a reliable and a focused newsgroup. Evidence grows
daily the unix-pc.* newsgroup is not well-distributed despite all the good
intentions of those who wish it to be so.
2) separation of UNIXPC-related source from the general discussions seems a
good thing, because it's my observation that any newsgroup containing the
letters "*source*" enjoys both a longer expiry time and automatic archiving.
An established area already exists (comp.sources.*) and the inclusion of an
area for the UNIXPC makes sense. It's my feeling there will be more there
than in, for example, comp.sources.mac (since PORTAL keeps *sources* online
a l-o-n-g time, I just checked that newsgroup: only one (1) posting, and
it's dated October 8; the present state of unix-pc.sources on PORTAL
comprises 39 "collection" entries still online dating from Aug.8 to Nov.28)
3) as for a moderated *.sources, my feeling is we propose whatever it takes
to assure a vote victory. Should be NO problem! The last posting to
comp.sources.misc was Oct 14, asking for a new moderator, hence the
incredibly increased traffic in alt.sources (which is NOT well-distributed).
My preference is for NO moderation since the inclusion of a moderator in
the distribution chain increases the time-delay for what "may" often be a
critical need (much like my "extra drains in the pipe" example :-)
"Kwik 'n dirty" sources such as my recent {send;pass;recv} would continue
to be in the general discussion newsgroup because the sources were only
incidental.
4) there should be only one "group" which combines all of the existing
unix-pc.general, unix-pc.bugs, unix-pc.uucp, and unix-pc.test
It appears we all read ALL the stuff anyway, so a SINGLE, central location
appears to be a logical change which also reduces newsgroup "clutter".
5) so now we focus our attention on what the <???> in comp.sys.<???> and
comp.sources.<???> should be named.
My belief is the choice for <???> should be orthogonal in the sense that a
comp.sys.FOOBAR would have a corresponding comp.sources.FOOBAR. Yes, this
is not quite the existing scheme of things, but just because someone else
screwed up does not mean we should continue the SNAFU; let's show them we
can do it RIGHT.
This decision is NOT easy since there really is a family of related systems
for which the <???> will/would be a valid forum. As others have stated,
the related systems include the s4, safari, Miniframe, Motorola 6300 and
Motorola 6350, UNIXPC, PC7300, 3B1, and there may be others ... someone
from CT or UNISYS/NCG would have to fill in the blanks here.
For me, the issue is clouded even further since it IS one OEM who actually
manufactured all the above systems, and whose current product line *IS*
upward compatible. I've run 3B1 binary executables directly on the CT
MightyFrame (a 68020 machine), and the UNISYS 4040 (their 68040 box) will
also run the same executables.
Regarding names/numbers, Amdahl has a new line of 7300 UNIX mainframes, and
AT&T's new line (mfd by Pyramid) is called the 7000-series. Starts to
get confusing, eh? :-)
So, any "7300", "PC7300" or "7000" as "<???>" is OUT. Period.
And recent posts have shown that owners/users of Motorola and Miniframe
systems are NOT ignorant and have found "our" present hierarchy. And
please note my use of the word "ignorant." Contrast the material found
in "our" newsgroup and in comp.sys.att with the oft-times utter bilge and
garbage in many of the present "mainstream" groups and any sane person
would conclude that "we" have more "rights" to better distribution than
those other groups. A sobering thought, no?
This leaves us with the other extant identifiers "UNIXPC" and "3B1". The
BYTE Magazine system review (May 1986) was headlined "The AT&T UNIXPC".
All documents of any consequence refer to the system as UNIXPC. All use
I've seen of "3B1" has been only in this newsgroup, though I often refer
to the system as "3B1/UNIXPC/PC7300" in other newsgroups. Some people have
told me they LIKE the "snob" appeal of "3B1" since it appears to be a REAL
computer contrasted with a "PC"; different strokes for different folks.
My suggestion is we KEEP the label "UNIXPC" since it clearly identifies the
system as a desktop UNIX workstation, in fact, one of the first affordable
ones, and NOT let the label drop to be picked up later by some other
special interest group. I haven't seen any great volume of material
posted to unix-pc.* from the DOS-based world, thus I don't perceive any
problem since I'm sure many have chastised the "offenders" via email.
So, in summary, I'm proffering:
comp.sys.unixpc, and
comp.sources.unixpc
and also for the archive name at osu-cis to be changed from "att7300" to
be whatever finally gets voted and approved.
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) (11/30/90)
In article <36335@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >das@trac2000.ueci.com (David Snyder) in <942@trac2000.ueci.com> writes: > > I agree 100%. We MUST get rid of the reference to "unix-pc". > >Hmmm. One person during our AT&T Users' Group meeting this evening shared >his thoughts about the matter, and he presented a compelling case to NOT >give up the "UNIXPC" name because then the 8088/8086/80286/80386/80486 users >would snatch up "UNIXPC" for themselves and then suffer massive infusions >of cross-postings by US, whose machines are labelled "AT&T UNIXPC" ! :-) > [ statements perceived (:-) as fact deleted ] > >Now for some of MY opinions: > >1) the number of installed machines and whether they are in current production > is irrelevant. There are more 3B1/UNIXPC/PC7300 systems in the world today > than NeXT machines, yet the NeXT users have their comp.sys.next newsgroup > because they shared an interest, petitioned for a group, and voted it in. > > I see a VERY large (and GROWING) interest in the UNIXPC and that interest > needs to be served by a reliable and a focused newsgroup. Evidence grows > daily the unix-pc.* newsgroup is not well-distributed despite all the good > intentions of those who wish it to be so. The interest is what is significant. As measured by the volume and variety of postings, it deserves better distribution. > >2) separation of UNIXPC-related source from the general discussions seems a > good thing, because it's my observation that any newsgroup containing the > [ ... ] I see no valid argument against that. > >3) as for a moderated *.sources, my feeling is we propose whatever it takes > to assure a vote victory. Should be NO problem! The last posting to > comp.sources.misc was Oct 14, asking for a new moderator, hence the > incredibly increased traffic in alt.sources (which is NOT well-distributed). > > My preference is for NO moderation since the inclusion of a moderator in I agree on both points: Lets do what will work to get it going, but I'd rather it not be moderated. Why bother, considering the relatively small amount of traffic. Odd off-topic postings may be a problem, but it will never be significant enough to warrant the effort to moderate it. > [ ... ] >4) there should be only one "group" which combines all of the existing > unix-pc.general, unix-pc.bugs, unix-pc.uucp, and unix-pc.test > > It appears we all read ALL the stuff anyway, so a SINGLE, central location > appears to be a logical change which also reduces newsgroup "clutter". I see no argument against that. > >5) so now we focus our attention on what the <???> in comp.sys.<???> and > comp.sources.<???> should be named. > > My belief is the choice for <???> should be orthogonal in the sense that a > comp.sys.FOOBAR would have a corresponding comp.sources.FOOBAR. Yes, this > [ ... ] > This decision is NOT easy since there really is a family of related systems > for which the <???> will/would be a valid forum. As others have stated, > the related systems include the s4, safari, Miniframe, Motorola 6300 and > Motorola 6350, UNIXPC, PC7300, 3B1, and there may be others ... someone > [ ... ] > So, any "7300", "PC7300" or "7000" as "<???>" is OUT. Period. Amen. > And recent posts have shown that owners/users of Motorola and Miniframe > systems are NOT ignorant and have found "our" present hierarchy. And > [... ] This is a very good point. I don't think the name needs to indicate clearly and precisely what the group covers. Those looking for this info KNOW what they are looking for. By the same token, the name should NOT attract those who *don't* know what they are looking for. > This leaves us with the other extant identifiers "UNIXPC" and "3B1". The > BYTE Magazine system review (May 1986) was headlined "The AT&T UNIXPC". > All documents of any consequence refer to the system as UNIXPC. All use > I've seen of "3B1" has been only in this newsgroup, though I often refer > to the system as "3B1/UNIXPC/PC7300" in other newsgroups. Some people have > told me they LIKE the "snob" appeal of "3B1" since it appears to be a REAL > computer contrasted with a "PC"; different strokes for different folks. > > My suggestion is we KEEP the label "UNIXPC" since it clearly identifies the > system as a desktop UNIX workstation, in fact, one of the first affordable > ones, and NOT let the label drop to be picked up later by some other > special interest group. I haven't seen any great volume of material > posted to unix-pc.* from the DOS-based world, thus I don't perceive any > problem since I'm sure many have chastised the "offenders" via email. NO. NO. NO. Total disagreement. The problem with putting 'pc' in the name is bad now. I find it annoying, and it appears many people do. It is going to get worse. And worse, and worse again. It is never going to get better. That is a fact of life. Way up at the top Thad references concern about Intel oriented folks "snatching" up the title UNIXPC if we let it go. Hell, its gone. Forget it. Lets just save ourselves the confusion and dump it. Who cares! And the same applies to 3b1 or 7300 or att in the name. If it is going to cause confusion, dump it. I don't give a rats ass what kind of perceived snob appeal any of it has. That is all in the eye of the beholder, and differs for each of us. It is not important. Name it in such a way that it reduces the confusion. No reference to 'PC' is worth it. '7300' isn't too clear either. '3b1' seems the best thing suggested, but I'd certainly go along with anything better. Just that I haven't thought of or heard of anything better yet. > > So, in summary, I'm proffering: > > comp.sys.unixpc, and > comp.sources.unixpc I would vote no on that, but yes to almost anything else. I'll vote no on *any* name with 'pc' in it. Floyd -- Floyd L. Davidson floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu Salcha, AK 99714 paycheck connection to Alascom, Inc. When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry.
wilber@alice.att.com (Bob Wilber) (11/30/90)
In article <36335@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >... >2) separation of UNIXPC-related source from the general discussions seems a > good thing, because it's my observation that any newsgroup containing the > letters "*source*" enjoys both a longer expiry time and automatic archiving. Yes, and administrators provide the long expiration times and automatic archiving because they know that a *moderated* source group isn't full of junk that nobody's going to want to look at two weeks later. > ... >3) as for a moderated *.sources, my feeling is we propose whatever it takes > to assure a vote victory. Should be NO problem! The last posting to > comp.sources.misc was Oct 14, asking for a new moderator, hence the > incredibly increased traffic in alt.sources (which is NOT well-distributed). > > My preference is for NO moderation since the inclusion of a moderator in > the distribution chain increases the time-delay for what "may" often be a > critical need (much like my "extra drains in the pipe" example :-) > > "Kwik 'n dirty" sources such as my recent {send;pass;recv} would continue > to be in the general discussion newsgroup because the sources were only > incidental. If a separate sources group is to be created at all, it should be moderated. First, that will increase the probability of it passing, since the Guardians of the Net (TM) are much more likely to go thumbs down on an unmoderated sources group. More important, it is the only way to keep out posts like "Where do I get patch?" and "The Evils of Copyleft". Also, bug reports do not belong in sources groups. If you find a bug, send E-mail to the author. If you *must* let 1,000 people know of your troubles, that's what comp.sys.<???> is for. The rule of thumb is: If it's not worth archiving for a long time, it doesn't belong in a sources group. The moderator should only ensure that the article posted is of the right sort, he should not be expected to check the code for viruses, track down bugs, or even ensure that the stuff compiles. So the delays shouldn't be too bad. The current bottleneck in comp.sources.misc is an unusual situation -- until recently the posting delay to that newsgroup has been very reasonable. Without moderation sources groups simply become discussion groups with an occasional posting of source. >4) there should be only one "group" which combines all of the existing > unix-pc.general, unix-pc.bugs, unix-pc.uucp, and unix-pc.test > > It appears we all read ALL the stuff anyway, so a SINGLE, central location > appears to be a logical change which also reduces newsgroup "clutter". > Correct. >5) so now we focus our attention on what the <???> in comp.sys.<???> and > comp.sources.<???> should be named. > > My belief is the choice for <???> should be orthogonal in the sense that a > comp.sys.FOOBAR would have a corresponding comp.sources.FOOBAR. Yes, this > is not quite the existing scheme of things, but just because someone else > screwed up does not mean we should continue the SNAFU; let's show them we > can do it RIGHT. > ... > This leaves us with the other extant identifiers "UNIXPC" and "3B1". The > BYTE Magazine system review (May 1986) was headlined "The AT&T UNIXPC". > All documents of any consequence refer to the system as UNIXPC. All use > I've seen of "3B1" has been only in this newsgroup, though I often refer > to the system as "3B1/UNIXPC/PC7300" in other newsgroups. > ... > So, in summary, I'm proffering: > > comp.sys.unixpc, and > comp.sources.unixpc > > and also for the archive name at osu-cis to be changed from "att7300" to > be whatever finally gets voted and approved. If you think an alternative hierarchy called "unix-pc" gets a fair number of '386 BIOS posts, wait until you have a main hierarchy group called comp.sys.unixpc! I agree that "Unix PC" is the name AT&T used, and that "3b1" is a bit of last minute marketing mumblage that doesn't even appear in the documentation. But nowadays there are lots of "Unix PCs" having nothing to do with the 3b1 so making a group called unixpc is just asking for a never ending stream of inappropriate postings. We're outnumbered, guys. IBM won its marketing war, with the result that the very word "PC" now means "IBM 80x86 compatible". (Which is definately not politically correct!) AT&T lost its marketing war, so "Unix PC" now means whatever people want it to mean, and usually they want it to mean an 80x86 running Xenix. So ah'm stickin' to mah guns and shooting for comp.sys.3b1 and comp.sources.3b1. I don't object strongly to comp.sys.att.3b1 and comp.sources.att.3b1, although I don't see much of an advantage to the longer names either. If "3b1" seems a bit obscure, well, it keeps the riff raff out. (In reference to another post, perhaps it should be called comp.sys.cult-unix-box. :-) Bob Wilber wilber@homxb.att.com
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/01/90)
In article <36335@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: | Regarding names/numbers, Amdahl has a new line of 7300 UNIX mainframes, and | AT&T's new line (mfd by Pyramid) is called the 7000-series. Starts to | get confusing, eh? :-) | | So, any "7300", "PC7300" or "7000" as "<???>" is OUT. Period. Yes this will cause as much confusion as IBM calling their system the RS6000 when Radio Shack makes a 6000. ie. none that I can see. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.
das@trac2000.ueci.com (David Snyder) (12/01/90)
In article <1990Nov29.164822.20601@hayes.ims.alaska.edu>, floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: >> >> So, in summary, I'm proffering: >> >> comp.sys.unixpc, and >> comp.sources.unixpc > > I would vote no on that, but yes to almost anything else. I'll > vote no on *any* name with 'pc' in it. > Floyd speaks for me too. DAS -- David Snyder @ UE&C - Catalytic in Philadelphia, PA UUCP: ..!uunet!trac2000!das INTERNET: das@trac2000.ueci.com
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (12/01/90)
wilber@alice.att.com (Bob Wilber) in <11686@alice.att.com> writes: Re a "sources" group: >Yes, and administrators provide the long expiration times and automatic >archiving because they know that a *moderated* source group isn't full of >junk that nobody's going to want to look at two weeks later. > ... >If a separate sources group is to be created at all, it should be moderated. >First, that will increase the probability of it passing, since the Guardians o f > ... >The moderator should only ensure that the article posted is of the right sort, >he should not be expected to check the code for viruses, track down bugs, or >even ensure that the stuff compiles. So the delays shouldn't be too bad. Fine. If, say, 1 or 2 day turnaround (with possible co-moderators) can be assured, I'm sure we can live with that. And Bob's comments re: people's interpretation of "UNIX PC" and "PC" do seem to reflect the present state-of-affairs. Sigh. Any (re-)organization of comp.sys.att should be handled by those willing to spend the time on THAT issue. Let's solve the original problem which was to assure easy world-wide distribution of "a" newsgroup for the 3B1/UNIXPC/PC7300. From email I've received over the years, it's clear we have interested parties in Europe, Japan and Australia, and they DO NOT get the present "unix-pc.*" but DO get comp.sys.att The way to solve the problem is to become a "mainstream" newsgroup. I don't feel strongly about the name, so let's go with: comp.sys.3b1, and comp.sources.3b1 I'm sure many of us read OTHER newsgroups, so it's easy to direct someone to "our" newsgroup if we see messages elsewhere asking about the systems. Let's see if we can get a vote started BEFORE the upcoming holidays. Don't want to see the 3-week period encompassing the period around December 25 because that would complicate receiving everyone's votes. Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]
dts@quad.sialis.com (David Sandberg) (12/01/90)
In article <36388@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes:
:I don't feel strongly about the name, so let's go with:
:
: comp.sys.3b1, and
: comp.sources.3b1
:
:Let's see if we can get a vote started BEFORE the upcoming holidays.
I agree with Thad, on all counts.
--
\\ David Sandberg \ ,=, ,=, \\
// dts@quad.sialis.com / | |uadric `=,ystems //
\\ uunet!umn-cs!sialis!quad!dts \ `=\ `=' \\dave@das13.snide.com (Dave Snyder) (12/01/90)
In article <36388@cup.portal.com>, thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > I don't feel strongly about the name, so let's go with: > > comp.sys.3b1, and > comp.sources.3b1 > > Let's see if we can get a vote started BEFORE the upcoming holidays. Don't > want to see the 3-week period encompassing the period around December 25 > because that would complicate receiving everyone's votes. > I have to agree with Thad, we MUST vote before the holidays! BTW, I'll most definitely vote 'thumbs-up' on the above groups. DAS -- David Snyder @ Snide Inc. - Folcroft, PA UUCP: ..!uunet!trac2000!das13!dave INTERNET: dave@das13.snide.com
mehl@cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl) (12/02/90)
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >I don't feel strongly about the name, so let's go with: > comp.sys.3b1, and > comp.sources.3b1 I do feel strongly about the name; let's try: comp.sys.att.3b1 (since we already have comp.sys.att) and comp.sources.unix.3b1 (since we already have c.s.unix) >Let's see if we can get a vote started BEFORE the upcoming holidays. Now there's a thought. Can we reach a consensus on the name? -- /\ Mark M Mehl, alias Superticker (Supertickler to some) <><> Internet: mehl@atanasoff.cs.IAstate.edu \/ UUCP: {{mailrus,umix}!sharkey,uunet,rutgers!ksuvax1}!atanasoff!mehl Disclaimer: You got to be kidding; who would want to claim anything I said?
dts@quad.sialis.com (David Sandberg) (12/03/90)
In article <mehl.660126253@judy.cs.iastate.edu> mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu writes: >I do feel strongly about the name; let's try: > comp.sys.att.3b1 (since we already have comp.sys.att) and I don't greatly dislike this, but I like comp.sys.3b1 better. As someone else said, AT&T orphaned this machine... most of the support for it now comes from the group itself, rather than from the original company (with the exception of a few persons from thereabouts who deserve to be repeatedly patted on the back for their efforts). Also, the group is meant to cover machines from more manufacturers than just AT&T (the fabled Miniframe, for one example). > comp.sources.unix.3b1 (since we already have c.s.unix) You'd get a "no" on that one from me - it would be contrary to all existing practice. There are sources groups for various UNIX machines already, but not one of them is grouped underneath comp.sources.unix. I say we stick with comp.sources.3b1. -- \\ David Sandberg \ ,=, ,=, \\ // dts@quad.sialis.com / | |uadric `=,ystems // \\ uunet!umn-cs!sialis!quad!dts \ `=\ `=' \\
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (12/03/90)
In article <mehl.660126253@judy.cs.iastate.edu> mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu writes: > thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > >Let's see if we can get a vote started BEFORE the upcoming holidays. > Now there's a thought. Can we reach a consensus on the name? You could try a multiway vote, and see what your prospective readership really thinks... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
wwm@pmsmam.uucp (Bill Meahan) (12/03/90)
This discussion seems to be approaching a state of sadistic necrophilic bestiality ( beating dead horses :-) ). Could we PLEASE have a vote and be done with it so we can get back to discussing the computers, software and other INTERESTING items. Please!??! -- Bill Meahan WA8TZG | For God so loved the world, uunet!mailrus!umich!pmsmam!wwm | He didn't send a committee. "I do NOT speak for anyone | -Anonymous but me, myself and I!" | (especially a STANDARDS committee ;-)
gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo) (12/03/90)
In <1990Nov29.164822.20601@hayes.ims.alaska.edu> floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: > In article <36335@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > > comp.sys.unixpc, and > > comp.sources.unixpc > I would vote no on that, but yes to almost anything else. I'll > vote no on *any* name with 'pc' in it. Me too. My present inclination is toward merging unix-pc.* into comp.sys.3b1 and creating an unmoderated comp.sources.3b1. I can't see that the "3b1" name is really much of a problem, 'cause those of us presently taking part in this discussion know what they are, and those folks who don't who stumble on the newsgroups won't know what they are - which suits me just fine! As long as the groups are announced appropriately in the news lists, so that people who have just acquired UNIX-PCs or who want to hook up with the newsgroups can find them by grepping for '7300', '3[Bb]1' or UNIXPC', it would all seem to come out in the wash. :-) -- Gary S. Trujillo gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us Somerville, Massachusetts {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
ward@tsnews.Convergent.COM (Ward Griffiths) (12/04/90)
dts@quad.sialis.com (David Sandberg) writes: >In article <36388@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >: comp.sys.3b1, and >: comp.sources.3b1 >:Let's see if we can get a vote started BEFORE the upcoming holidays. >I agree with Thad, on all counts. Agreed. Let's get this over with. Since among other things, this here former Convergent Technologies plant where the machine was originally designed will be closed the whole last half of December, and I don't have easy net access down in L.A. -- The people that make Unisys' official opinions get paid more. A LOT more. Ward Griffiths, Unisys NCG aka Convergent Technologies =========================================================================== To Hell with "Only One Earth"! Try "At Least One Solar System"! "Let's get out of here. They've run out of meat. Funerals are a pain when there are more than twenty people. Never get enough to eat." Donald Kingsbury, "Courtship Rite": Gaet to Honey
murphyn@motcid.UUCP (Neal P. Murphy) (12/04/90)
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: ... >>The moderator should only ensure that the article posted is of the right sort, >>he should not be expected to check the code for viruses, track down bugs, or >>even ensure that the stuff compiles. So the delays shouldn't be too bad. >Fine. If, say, 1 or 2 day turnaround (with possible co-moderators) can be >assured, I'm sure we can live with that. >And Bob's comments re: people's interpretation of "UNIX PC" and "PC" do seem >to reflect the present state-of-affairs. Sigh. ... >I don't feel strongly about the name, so let's go with: > comp.sys.3b1, and > comp.sources.3b1 >I'm sure many of us read OTHER newsgroups, so it's easy to direct someone to >"our" newsgroup if we see messages elsewhere asking about the systems. >Let's see if we can get a vote started BEFORE the upcoming holidays. Don't >want to see the 3-week period encompassing the period around December 25 >because that would complicate receiving everyone's votes. This I agree with. The sources group should be moderated for the reasons specified in one or two other recent postings. The name should not have AT&T or PC in it because: 1) MOT and CT marketed similar machines and shouldn't be left out, 2) It is *not* a PC, and 3) We have a separate newsgroup now; we should remain separate, yet be part of a main hierarchy so that we can achieve wider, more reliable distribution. If there is documented proof that some systems have trouble with groups that begin with a digit, I would settle for .u3b1. As I recall though, those systems only had trouble with a root group starting with a digit (e.g., 3b1.sources and 3b1.general would likely choke some systems.) Let's vote! NPN
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/04/90)
In article <I7Z7.AF@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: | You could try a multiway vote, and see what your prospective readership | really thinks... I tried this, and got a really nasty note for my pains. It would be a fun way to try out the descending preffered names voting I suggested, but it will probably be done by shouting match. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.
emcguire@ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire) (12/04/90)
In article <5577@bone13.UUCP> murphyn@motcid.UUCP (Neal P. Murphy) writes:
Let's vote!
There is obviously still controversy over whether or not to use .att in
the name. This might be a good candidate for using one of the proposed
STV methods of new group creation. Preferably one easier to understand
than Stodolsky's. ;-)
--
peace. -- Ed
"Over here, Bones! This man's dying!"
"Damn it, Jim! I'm a doctor, not a . . . What did you say?"mehl@cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl) (12/04/90)
dts@quad.sialis.com (David Sandberg) writes: >In article <mehl.660126253@judy.cs.iastate.edu> mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu writes: >> comp.sys.att.3b1 (since we already have comp.sys.att) and >I don't greatly dislike this, but I like comp.sys.3b1 better. >. . . AT&T orphaned this machine... >support . . . comes from the group itself, rather than from >the original company . . . True, but newsgroups in the comp.sys.* hierarchy normally have a manufacture's name in them whenever possible an AT&T is it. >Also, the group is meant to cover machines from >more manufacturers than just AT&T (the fabled Miniframe, for one Well . . . auhhhh, this is a problem. Someone suggested comp.sys.unixpc earlier, but no one likes "pc". Perhaps comp.sys.unix-micro would work for a multi-vendor group, although I would still prefer a vendor's name in a comp.sys.* group (i.e. I like c.s.att.3b1 best). If comp.sys.unix-micro does pass, what going to happen to comp.sys.workstation? Would there be plans to rename it to comp.sys.unix-micro.super (or something)? >> comp.sources.unix.3b1 (since we already have c.s.unix) >You'd get a "no" on that one . . . >There are sources groups for various >UNIX machines already, but not one of them is grouped underneath >comp.sources.unix. I withdraw my original suggestion; you are correct. I'm assuming general OS sources (for unix) would appear in c.s.unix anyway, so the proposed c.s.3b1 group would be for assembler and low-level sources not pertaining to unix. -- /\ Mark M Mehl, alias Superticker (Supertickler to some) <><> Internet: mehl@atanasoff.cs.IAstate.edu \/ UUCP: {{mailrus,umix}!sharkey,uunet,rutgers!ksuvax1}!atanasoff!mehl Disclaimer: You got to be kidding; who would want to claim anything I said?
floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) (12/04/90)
In article <638@quad.sialis.com> dts@quad.sialis.com (David Sandberg) writes: >In article <mehl.660126253@judy.cs.iastate.edu> mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu writes: >>I do feel strongly about the name; let's try: >> comp.sys.att.3b1 (since we already have comp.sys.att) and > >I don't greatly dislike this, but I like comp.sys.3b1 better. >As someone else said, AT&T orphaned this machine... most of the >support for it now comes from the group itself, rather than from >the original company (with the exception of a few persons from >thereabouts who deserve to be repeatedly patted on the back for >their efforts). This line of thought keeps popping up. I can't agree at all. Does anyone really expect AT&T or any other manufacturer to continue making or supporting every product they introduce? That is a silly idea. And in fact they have provided quite a bit more than many companies provide on their current line! There have been updates and info made available since the model was dropped. Very unusual. Very nice, too. Actually most of us would never have been able to afford a UNIX box anywhere near this nice if it wasn't for AT&T's policies (or lack of market savey...). I bear no ill feelings about AT&T handling of the model. >Also, the group is meant to cover machines from >more manufacturers than just AT&T (the fabled Miniframe, for one >example). This is an excellent point. > >> comp.sources.unix.3b1 (since we already have c.s.unix) > >You'd get a "no" on that one from me - it would be contrary to >all existing practice. There are sources groups for various >UNIX machines already, but not one of them is grouped underneath >comp.sources.unix. I say we stick with comp.sources.3b1. This I agree with. Stick with comp.sources.3b1, but for the right reasons. Leave the feelings about AT&T out of it. Floyd (I feel obliged to point out that I work for the only "other" regulated long distance carrier in the US, and that may very well bias my thoughts. AT&T and Alascom do NOT compete with each other.) -- Floyd L. Davidson floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu Salcha, AK 99714 paycheck connection to Alascom, Inc. When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry.
rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) (12/04/90)
In article <1990Nov29.164822.20601@hayes.ims.alaska.edu>, floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: >In article <36335@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >>das@trac2000.ueci.com (David Snyder) in <942@trac2000.ueci.com> writes: >>> >>>I agree 100%. We MUST get rid of the reference to "unix-pc". >> >>Hmmm. One person during our AT&T Users' Group meeting this evening shared >>his thoughts about the matter, and he presented a compelling case to NOT >>give up the "UNIXPC" name because then the 8088/8086/80286/80386/80486 users >>would snatch up "UNIXPC" for themselves and then suffer massive infusions >>of cross-postings by US, whose machines are labelled "AT&T UNIXPC" ! :-) >> > [ statements perceived (:-) as fact deleted ] >> >>Now for some of MY opinions: >> >>5) so now we focus our attention on what the <???> in comp.sys.<???> and >> comp.sources.<???> should be named. >> [ ... ] >> And recent posts have shown that owners/users of Motorola and Miniframe >> systems are NOT ignorant and have found "our" present hierarchy. And >> [... ] > >This is a very good point. I don't think the name needs to indicate >clearly and precisely what the group covers. Those looking for this info >KNOW what they are looking for. By the same token, the name should NOT >attract those who *don't* know what they are looking for. > >> This leaves us with the other extant identifiers "UNIXPC" and "3B1". The >> BYTE Magazine system review (May 1986) was headlined "The AT&T UNIXPC". >> All documents of any consequence refer to the system as UNIXPC. All use >> I've seen of "3B1" has been only in this newsgroup, though I often refer >> to the system as "3B1/UNIXPC/PC7300" in other newsgroups. Some people have >> told me they LIKE the "snob" appeal of "3B1" since it appears to be a REAL >> computer contrasted with a "PC"; different strokes for different folks. >> >> My suggestion is we KEEP the label "UNIXPC" since it clearly identifies the >> system as a desktop UNIX workstation, in fact, one of the first affordable >> ones, and NOT let the label drop to be picked up later by some other >> special interest group. I haven't seen any great volume of material >> posted to unix-pc.* from the DOS-based world, thus I don't perceive any >> problem since I'm sure many have chastised the "offenders" via email. > >NO. NO. NO. Total disagreement. > >The problem with putting 'pc' in the name is bad now. I find it annoying, >and it appears many people do. It is going to get worse. And worse, >and worse again. It is never going to get better. That is a fact of >life. Way up at the top Thad references concern about Intel oriented >folks "snatching" up the title UNIXPC if we let it go. Hell, its gone. >Forget it. Lets just save ourselves the confusion and dump it. >[...] >Name it in such a way that it reduces the confusion. No >reference to 'PC' is worth it. '7300' isn't too clear either. >'3b1' seems the best thing suggested, but I'd certainly go along >with anything better. Just that I haven't thought of or heard >of anything better yet. >> >> So, in summary, I'm proffering: >> >> comp.sys.unixpc, and >> comp.sources.unixpc >I would vote no on that, but yes to almost anything else. I'll >vote no on *any* name with 'pc' in it. How about unix680x0 ? This would eliminate the PC in UnixPC, but would be less "esotaric" than 3b1 (and therefore les likely to inadvertently exclude the CT and Motrola systems that the 3b1 is compatable with) So: comp.sys.unix680x0 comp.sources.unix680x0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- About MS-DOS: "... an OS originally designed for a microprocessor that modern kitchen appliances would sneer at...." - Dave Trowbridge, _Computer Technology Review_, Aug 90 iwblsys\ rlw@ttardis uunet!rel.mi.org!cfctech!ttardis!rlw sharkey.cc.umich.edu/ rel.mi.org is currently sick - back in 2 weeks.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec4.032432.2296@ccad.uiowa.edu> emcguire@ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire) writes: | There is obviously still controversy over whether or not to use .att in | the name. This might be a good candidate for using one of the proposed | STV methods of new group creation. Preferably one easier to understand | than Stodolsky's. ;-) At the risk of offending some people, I will again offer this voting form, as modified by suggestions from a few people. Feedback by mail or posting is encouraged. My thanks to the people who have helped me improve this. ================================================================ Sample message: Subject: CVF: Group for large pet owners (BIGPETS) >From: votecount@somewhere.com Instructions: On the two lines Starting with $$ put your vote at the end of the line, after the colon. Your vote should be: 1) X on the YES line to accept the group under any name 2) X on the NO line to reject the group under any name 3) a string of letters (like acf) on the YES or NO lines to vote for or against individual names. YES votes for individual groups are counted in the order given. You *may* vote only for or against certain names, if you don't vote either way it will be counted as abstain. Group charter: This group will discuss keeping of large animals as household pets, such as horses and pigs. Housebreaking and vet issues will be discussed. Proposed names: a. rec.pets.farm b. rec.pets.barnyard Votes: $$ YES for names in order of preference (or X for any name okay): $$ NO for names (or X for no group): You may reply to this posting or mail votes to votecount@somewhere.com. You may delete any lines which do not start with $$, but if you delete any $$ line or change the subject line, your vote will not be counted. ================================================================ Note that this allows vote counting software at some site to count votes for a number of proposals at once. The vote is identified by the code in the Subject: line, in this case (BIGPETS). Counting: the names would be ranked by order of preference. Starting with the most popular name the YES votes would be counted as all the votes which preferred the name (at all), and all the votes which said X for "any name." The NO votes would be counted as the number of votes against that name, plus the number of votes again any name (against the idea of the group). If several names had equal preference they would be ranked by vote, if equal by vote the initial order on the ballot would be used as the tiebreaker. After ordering, if any name satisfied the current requirements for total YES votes and ratio of YES to NO votes, then the first (most popular) name would be selected, and the group created. This proposal has the following advantages: a. It allows resolution of both group creation and name issues on a single ballot. b. It can be counted by a program, only vote rejection need be done by hand, and that can be semi-automated. c. It allows a reasonable way to express votes against the group at all under any name, for the group under any name, and for or against individual names. It also allows voting for or against a single name, while abstaining on other names. Of course it can be used with a single name as a means of automating votes. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (12/05/90)
In article <2658@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes: >How about unix680x0 ? >This would eliminate the PC in UnixPC, but would be less "esotaric" than >3b1 (and therefore les likely to inadvertently exclude the CT and Motrola >systems that the 3b1 is compatable with) >So: comp.sys.unix680x0 > comp.sources.unix680x0 Hate to tell you this, but there are many more Unix systems that run on 680x0s than just the 3B1 series - the NCR Tower series, for example. I don't have a real strong opinion here, except to note that there are other groups that name one machine, but cover others compatible with it - c.s.ibm.pc and c.s.apple2, off the top of my head. A comp.sys.[att.]3b1 would include the CT and Motorola compatibles just fine. (I didn't even _know_ there was a Motorola 3B1-compatible box.) -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "...flames are a specific art form of Usenet..." -- Gregory C. Woodbury
templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) (12/05/90)
In article <2658@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes: > >How about unix680x0 ? > >This would eliminate the PC in UnixPC, but would be less "esotaric" than >3b1 (and therefore les likely to inadvertently exclude the CT and Motrola >systems that the 3b1 is compatable with) > >So: comp.sys.unix680x0 > comp.sources.unix680x0 Let's see, this would be a perfectly valid place for at least the following computers to be discussed (are there more?) apollo (at least some of the older models) sun-2, sun-3, (sun-4?) Macintosh running A/UX NeXT I think this might even be worse than unixpc. But maybe you were joking. jeff
ward@tsnews.Convergent.COM (Ward Griffiths) (12/06/90)
rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes: In unix-pc.general you write: >How about unix680x0 ? >This would eliminate the PC in UnixPC, but would be less "esotaric" than >3b1 (and therefore les likely to inadvertently exclude the CT and Motrola >systems that the 3b1 is compatable with) >So: comp.sys.unix680x0 > comp.sources.unix680x0 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >About MS-DOS: "... an OS originally designed for a microprocessor that modern > kitchen appliances would sneer at...." > - Dave Trowbridge, _Computer Technology Review_, Aug 90 Well, aside from the fact that comp.sys.mc68k already exists, the problem with your suggestion is that then we'd be getting all of the Apple dweebs running A/UX showing, thinking that it would be a good place to share their problems. I don't want to hear their problems, I've got my own, and besides a Unix-PC (3B1) with a 68010 outperforms a Mac with a 68020 quite handily. And I don't need the twits running the Amiga SysV port crawling in, either. If this be name-calling, let me make the most of it. I have always like that quote in your .sig, BTW. -- The people that make Unisys' official opinions get paid more. A LOT more. Ward Griffiths, Unisys NCG aka Convergent Technologies =========================================================================== To Hell with "Only One Earth"! Try "At Least One Solar System"! "Let's get out of here. They've run out of meat. Funerals are a pain when there are more than twenty people. Never get enough to eat." Donald Kingsbury, "Courtship Rite": Gaet to Honey
lenny@icus.ICUS.COM (Lenny Tropiano) (12/06/90)
In article <76578@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes: |>In article <2658@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes: |>> |>>How about unix680x0 ? |>> |>>This would eliminate the PC in UnixPC, but would be less "esotaric" than |>>3b1 (and therefore les likely to inadvertently exclude the CT and Motrola |>>systems that the 3b1 is compatable with) |>> |>>So: comp.sys.unix680x0 |>> comp.sources.unix680x0 |> |> Let's see, this would be a perfectly valid place for at least the |>following computers to be discussed (are there more?) |> |> apollo (at least some of the older models) |> sun-2, sun-3, (sun-4?) |> Macintosh running A/UX |> NeXT |> There are already groups like these... comp.sys.m68k Discussion about 68k's. comp.sys.m68k.pc Discussion about 68k-based PCs. (Moderated) -L. -- | Lenny Tropiano ICUS Software Systems lenny@icus.ICUS.COM | | ...!{ames,cs.utexas.edu,pacbell}!icus!lenny attmail!icus!lenny | +---------------- 14300 Tandem Blvd #222, Austin, TX 78728 -----------------+