peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/30/90)
Most of the discussion in comp.os.misc these days is about QNX. Seems to me that it's time to create a QNX newsgroup. The volume isn't high, but it's consistent and of high quality. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
dewey@sequoia.execu.com (Dewey Henize) (07/31/90)
In article <VZ_4C+C@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: ]Most of the discussion in comp.os.misc these days is about QNX. Seems to me ]that it's time to create a QNX newsgroup. The volume isn't high, but it's ]consistent and of high quality. ]-- ]Peter da Silva. `-_-' ]+1 713 274 5180. 'U` ]<peter@ficc.ferranti.com> I don't know about most of the traffic as a whole, but most of the traffic that I read there is :-). Which means I do have an interest in it. I don't really have a feel for how much widespread interest there is though. It seems that there's a fair amount of posting from only a very small number of people. One thing that would help a lot would be if Quantum showed that they were interested in a group like that. I've stated before that I'd be willing to work with them to do some gatewaying if they wanted, but there wasn't any response from them. Since I know that some of their best people (and they have some really good ones) scan news, I assume that's indicative that they aren't interested in Usenet. [Even a negative would have been some response from them, but didn't get that either.] Under these conditions I have to reluctantly say that QNX one usenet will likely stay in the '.misc' catagory for a while. Who knows, though, if they do get the POSIX complient version out sometime soon. Regards, Dew -- | Execucom and I often have different ideas. THESE are mine, ok? Ok. | | dewey@execu.com or uunet!sequoia!dewey | |Don't reword the question into such generality that it appears absurd, that's| |a puerile trick. -Barry Shein | But this IS Usenet!! - me |