markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) (11/27/90)
In article <8352@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: >In article <1990Nov20.040329.5968@bagend.uucp> gatech!bagend!jan@ncar.ucar.edu (Jan Isley) writes: > >Weeell.. sigh.... Maybe it's a good idea to do this after all, *but* .. > >>WHY NOT comp.sys.att.3b1? >> Yeah, as much as I'm annoyed at AT&T for abandoning this excellent product, it does have the AT&T name on it, so most people would look for it there. So it looks like the best thing to do is to do a reorganization of the comp.sys.att group: comp.sys.att.3b1 7300's, 3b1's and related CT machines .3b2 Can include the 3b2-clones (3b5, 3b15, 3b20..) .misc Other stuff >>WHAT ABOUT THE unix-pc. groups? >> There are two problems with the unix-pc groups: 1) distribution, and 2) cross-posting. It may take several attempts to set up a reliable unix-pc feed, and even then articles sometimes fail to propagate fully. Some regions are unable to get a feed without incurring long-distance charges, or administrators are unwilling to make the effort to pick up groups which are outside of the mainstream hierarchies. With part of the traffic in comp.sys.att and part in unix-pc, it is necessary to read both groups to get all of the information. Not all articles are cross-posted. Even if we did create a comp.sys.3b1, articles would still be cross-posted to comp.sys.att. If we split up comp.sys.att as shown above, then we would eliminate the need for both the unix-pc and u3b hierarchies, and eliminate the need for all the cross-posting. It would also probably improve the distribution reliability for the information that we 3b* drivers need so desperately to keep our machines on the road. Mark -- Mark H. Weber | Internet: markw@GVL.Unisys.COM Unisys - Great Valley Labs | UUCP: ...!uunet!cbmvax!gvlv2!markw Paoli, PA USA (215) 648-7111 | ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!markw
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (11/27/90)
In article <1990Nov27.042139.2315@news.gvl.unisys.com> markw@GVL.Unisys.Com (Mark H. Weber) writes: > comp.sys.att.3b1 7300's, 3b1's and related CT machines > .3b2 Can include the 3b2-clones (3b5, 3b15, 3b20..) > .misc Other stuff I'm surprised that nobody else has mentioned this yet... Some systems can't handle newsgroups with leading digits in parts of the name. A number of groups have been originally proposed that way, and they all have been changed due to this problem...in fact, the u3b.* hierarchy started out in life as the 3b.* hierarchy and had to be renamed. No, I don't have a specific suggestion, but having groups named .3b1 and .3b2 will cause problems. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "With design like this, who needs bugs?" - Boyd Roberts
markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) (11/28/90)
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: |markw@GVL.Unisys.Com (Mark H. Weber) writes: |> comp.sys.att.3b1 7300's, 3b1's and related CT machines |> .3b2 Can include the 3b2-clones (3b5, 3b15, 3b20..) |> .misc Other stuff | |Some systems can't handle newsgroups with leading digits in parts of |the name. A number of groups have been originally proposed that way, and |they all have been changed due to this problem...in fact, the u3b.* |hierarchy started out in life as the 3b.* hierarchy and had to be renamed. | |No, I don't have a specific suggestion, but having groups named .3b1 and |.3b2 will cause problems. I guess we need to pick a letter (Vanna, I'd like to buy a vowel) - what about "u" (for unix?). How does this look: comp.sys.att.misc General discussions about AT&T computers .u3b1 3b1's, 7300's and related CT machines .u3b2 3b2's, including the 3b2-clones (3b5, 3b15, 3b20..) Maybe not the prettiest solution, but it should be workable. -- Mark H. Weber | Internet: markw@GVL.Unisys.COM Unisys - Great Valley Labs | UUCP: ...!uunet!cbmvax!gvlv2!markw Paoli, PA USA (215) 648-7111 | ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!markw
markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) (11/29/90)
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: >markw@GVL.Unisys.Com (Mark H. Weber) writes: > >[ discussion about comp.sys.att.3b1 ] > >>So it looks like the best thing to do is to do a reorganization of the >>comp.sys.att group: >> >> >> comp.sys.att.3b1 7300's, 3b1's and related CT machines >> .3b2 Can include the 3b2-clones (3b5, 3b15, 3b20..) >> .misc Other stuff > >If anyone would like it, I suggest adding comp.sys.att.63xx. I'm the >coordinator for the AT&T PC63xx mailing list, nearly 200 strong and I >would not object to gatewaying the mailing list into a newsgroup for 63xx >if the net wants it. I would not gateway the other way because the >folks on the mailing list have steadfastly refused to become a newsgroup. I thought about adding a 63xx group to my proposal, the fact that there is a 200-member mailing list indicates that there is a need for the group. So how about: comp.sys.att.3b1 7300's, 3b1's and related CT machines .3b2 Can include the 3b2-clones (3b5, 3b15, 3b20..) .63xx 6300's and related machines .misc Other stuff I'm hearing differing opinions about starting a newsgroup name with a digit. Is this really a problem? There are at least two active groups which violate this "rule" (comp.sys.atari.8bit and comp.sys.nsc.32k). Do people have problems with those groups? I can see a problem if you have a mixed-up hierarchy like this: comp.sys.att miscellaneous postings comp.sys.att.6300 6300 stuff In this case the news software may become confused by the 6300 subdirectory, which it might try to treat like an ordinary article. It should be OK, though, if you have a lower level "misc" group, or have at least 1 letter in the group name. If we do have to start with a letter, almost any would be ok, although it should probably be less than or equal to "m" so that the product-specific groups would sort out before the misc group. If an article is cross-posted within the hierarchy, it would be nice to see it first in the appropriate group. Is this one of those secondhand rumours ("I think I heard of someone who had a problem with this")? Can someone give a firsthand account of the problems they have on their machine with digit-started newsgroup names? -- Mark H. Weber | Internet: markw@GVL.Unisys.COM Unisys - Great Valley Labs | UUCP: ...!uunet!cbmvax!gvlv2!markw Paoli, PA USA (215) 648-7111 | ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!markw
markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) (11/30/90)
In article <941@trac2000.ueci.com> das@trac2000.ueci.com (David Snyder) writes: >Actually the reorganization of comp.sys.att was just a suggestion (for which >I am against). Remember people, the discussion is about creating: >comp.sys.3b1 and comp.sources.3b1! The reason for doing this is for improved >distribution (some of us keep seeing replies to articles when we never saw >the original), and to keep people from posting (as Jeff so graciously says) >"Gee, how do I get unix on my ibm.pc?" > Yes the original proposal was to create comp.sys.3b1, and I may have gotten a trifle carried away with expanding the discussion to include the possible reorganization of comp.sys.att. Creating comp.sys.3b1 does solve the distribution problem, and gets rid of the "unix-pc" name problems (sorry Thad, I'm afraid we've already lost the unix-pc name war). However, expanding the proposal to include a reorganization of comp.sys.att has a number of additional benefits: 1) Reduction of cross-posting. With comp.sys.3b1, articles would still be cross-posted between comp.sys.3b1 and comp.sys.att. 2) Centralization of information. If comp.sys.att were reorganized as I have suggested, if would eliminate the need for both the unix-pc.* and u3b.* groups. Also, the PC63xx mailing list could be gatewayed. 3) Easier for new users to find the group. It would not be obvious to a person who picked up a 7300 UNIXPC at a swap meet to look in comp.sys.3b1, but she might be look in comp.sys.att.*. A monthly informational posting in comp.sys.att.misc could easily direct her to the appropriate subgroup. This posting could be cross-posted to other groups such as comp.sys.m68k to pick up users of related Convergent and Motorola boxes. I'm sort of on the fence about the sources group. If we really need one, it should probably be called comp.sources.3b1 (or .att.3b1), so that sites which do not want to get any sources could filter it out. It should be unmoderated, or very lightly moderated. It takes a fair amount of work on the part of the vote taker, and at least some work on the part of all system administrators to set up a new group. If we are going to go through the effort to change things, we should go ahead and do the whole job, not just part of it. -- Mark H. Weber | Internet: markw@GVL.Unisys.COM Unisys - Great Valley Labs | UUCP: ...!uunet!cbmvax!gvlv2!markw Paoli, PA USA (215) 648-7111 | ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!markw
Alvin@cup.portal.com (Alvin Henry White) (11/30/90)
What about unix-pc.3b1.*? Thus leaving room for unix-pc.dos, etc. and making it a little less probable that the less directed would reach all the way to 3b1?
clear@cavebbs.gen.nz (Charlie Lear) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov28.214100.1391@news.gvl.unisys.com> markw@GVL.Unisys.Com (Mark H. Weber) writes: >So how about: > comp.sys.att.3b1 7300's, 3b1's and related CT machines > .3b2 Can include the 3b2-clones (3b5, 3b15, 3b20..) > .63xx 6300's and related machines > .misc Other stuff Out of all the discussion I've read on the subject, I think this is the soundest proposal. With subgroups containing non-numerics (3b1, 3b2 and 63xx) there should be no need to have a misc subgroup, just leave c.s.a as is. As a recent owner and new sysadm, I need to read anything about the 3B2 that appears. I have no knowledge and even less interest in unix-PCs, 6300s et al - not from snobbery, but because I have limited time to read and ingest a huge amount of information. I am equally sure a 6386 owner doesn't want to read about my hassles with getting a half-broken 3B2/400 underway. I feel there is sufficient interest in each type of machine to justify separate groups. Cross-posting shouldn't be necessary as anything of relevance to most people will still appear in comp.sys.att. Fragmentation of the net is an issue with some people; I've been on the net for only two years and the increase in traffic in that time is frightening. If the groups aren't split up into areas of specialist interest then I don't normally read them - even with trn I can't afford the time to wade through everything that isn't relevant to what I need to know. I can't be the only net.user in that position. Re calls to move specialist discussions into u3b hierarchies - please don't, there are a lot of AT&T machines worldwide and very few sites outside the USA get anything apart from the mainstream hiearchies. Whatever we do, the net guidelines ensure that newgroup creation takes some time. Let's try to come to some agreement before putting it to the vote. Regards to all. PS Ken of Nanaimo and Robb of Port Alberni - I can't raise you by email from this end. Can you send some email to me? We've got trn and conquer and other goodies and the Fido-compat BBS is being ported this weekend. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Charlie "The Bear" Lear | clear@cavebbs.gen.nz | Kawasaki Z750GT DoD#0221 The Cave MegaBBS +64 4 643429 V32 | PO Box 2009, Wellington, New Zealand --------------------------------------------------------------------------
das@trac2000.ueci.com (David Snyder) (12/01/90)
In article <1990Nov29.191856.4964@news.gvl.unisys.com>, markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) writes:
-> I'm sort of on the fence about the sources group. If we really need one,
-> it should probably be called comp.sources.3b1 (or .att.3b1), so that
-> sites which do not want to get any sources could filter it out. It should
-> be unmoderated, or very lightly moderated.
->
Definitely not unmoderated, preferably moderated but I'll meet you in the
middle with lightly moderated.
-> It takes a fair amount of work on the part of the vote taker, and at
-> least some work on the part of all system administrators to set up
-> a new group. If we are going to go through the effort to change things,
-> we should go ahead and do the whole job, not just part of it.
->
Hmmm, maybe I was a little selfish for not thinking of the other AT&T
boxes... sorry. :-)
DAS
--
David Snyder @ UE&C - Catalytic in Philadelphia, PA
UUCP: ..!uunet!trac2000!das INTERNET: das@trac2000.ueci.comdas@trac2000.ueci.com (David Snyder) (12/01/90)
In article <36346@cup.portal.com>, Alvin@cup.portal.com (Alvin Henry White) writes: > What about unix-pc.3b1.*? > Thus leaving room for unix-pc.dos, etc. and making it a little less probable > that the less directed would reach all the way to 3b1? > Aaaaaaaah! Ack. Sorry, but I couldn't resist! :-) Anyway, I think we would be opening a BIG can of worms with that one. (Just an opinion, please don't crucify) DAS -- David Snyder @ UE&C - Catalytic in Philadelphia, PA UUCP: ..!uunet!trac2000!das INTERNET: das@trac2000.ueci.com
dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US (David H. Brierley) (12/03/90)
I won't bore you with thousands of lines of included articles, just my 2 cents worth. I am strongly in favor of creating a new main-stream group to *replace* the existing unix-pc.* hierarchy. My primary reason for this is to solve the problem of poor connectivity. There are several major sites that refuse to carry the unix-pc groups because they are not part of the main-stream and as a result there are many isolated pockets of activity. Since the unix-pc (aka pc-7300, aka 3b1) has been officially abandoned by ATT, the newsgroup is the primary means of support available to most of the owners of the machine. Improved connectivity for a group designated for discussion of this machine would greatly benefit all of the people who own one. I think the issue of reorganizing comp.sys.att into multiple sub-groups is a separate but not completely un-related issue. Some people seem to strongly support a reorg so I am therefore changing my original position and am now coming out in favor of the name 'comp.sys.att.3b1'. I am also in favor of a moderated sources group called 'comp.sources.3b1'. When I orginally proposed a moderated sources group I volunteered to act as moderator and I am still willing. I am also seeking volunteers to act as co-moderators so that we can avoid problems in the future. I envision my role as moderator as simply a filter to ensure that all of the postings are either source programs or patches. In summary, I think we should proceed with creating comp.sys.att.3b1 and comp.sources.3b1 (moderated). The issue of attempting a reorganization of the other ATT machines into subgroups can be dealt with later but by naming this group as a subgroup of c.s.a we have paved the way for the reorg (or at least we have not done anything to block it). Let's Vote! -- David H. Brierley Home: dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US Work: dhb@quahog.ssd.ray.com Can I be excused, my brain is full.