weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Joe Weening) (01/17/90)
I'm in favor of comp.sys.alliant, but I think that it shouldn't be limited to the FX series (there will be other Alliant systems in the future, and I don't know if they'll be called FX), and it should be gatewayed with the info-alliant mailing list. Several years ago I tried to get comp.sys.alliant created as an inet group and gatewayed with info-alliant, but didn't succeed in getting this done. -- Joe Weening Computer Science Dept. weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Stanford University
martens@navajo.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) (01/26/90)
In article <WEENING.90Jan16202020@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Joe Weening) writes: >I'm in favor of comp.sys.alliant, but I think that it shouldn't be >limited to the FX series (there will be other Alliant systems in the [ ... ] Do it. I don't think the original call for votes said anything about limiting it to the FX, but I agree that this would be a mistake. Would the charter of comp.sys.alliant allow the discussion of FX-based systems, like Cedar? I guess this is a moot point if the group's unmoderated, but that'd be a point in its favor. -=- -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) My program to detect infinite loops seems to be stuck in a loop...