deb@zehntel.zehntel.com (Deborah Heller) (01/13/90)
In article <7344@chaph.usc.edu> tli%phakt.usc.edu@usc.edu () writes: > >This is a call for discussion about the creation of comp.sys.cisco, a >newsgroup for discussion about products from cisco systems. > >I propose that comp.sys.cisco be created to handle this traffic. I >suggest that it be an unmoderated group. > A news group to discuss brouters, repeaters, protocol converters, etc. would be a good idea. However, I object to the idea that we start a news group by concentrating on only one vendor's products. Instead, the group could be used as a place to discuss this class of products from any vendor. If the slant happens to wander towards cisco, so be it... There are an awful lot of network products out there that should not be ignored in news group of such timely significance. For example, Vitalink and 3COM products come to mind immediately. ( I wish there had been such a news group of this type when I was looking for a WAN bridge while in another life...) deb ================================================================================ Deborah Heller UUCP: ...!{decwrl,sun}!teraida!deb Teradyne Zehntel Systems Division Phone: (415) 932-6900 2625 Shadelands Drive
tli@phakt.usc.edu (Tony Li) (01/13/90)
In article <3165@zehntel.UUCP> deb@zehntel.UUCP (Deborah Heller) writes:
A news group to discuss brouters, repeaters, protocol converters, etc.
would be a good idea. However, I object to the idea that we start a
news group by concentrating on only one vendor's products. Instead,
the group could be used as a place to discuss this class of products
from any vendor. If the slant happens to wander towards cisco, so be
it...
I would think that BOTH groups are a good idea. The specialized group
for discussing the particular vendor's products, the general group for
broader subjects. Currently, this traffic is in comp.dcom.lans, which
isn't entirely appropriate. Anyone with a better suggestion?
comp.dcom.hardware?
Tony Li - USC Computer Science Department
Internet: tli@usc.edu Uucp: usc!tli
Thus spake the master programmer: "A well written program is its own
heaven; a poorly-written program its own hell."dixon@gumby.paradyne.com (0000-Tom Dixon(0000)) (01/14/90)
In article <3165@zehntel.UUCP> deb@zehntel.UUCP (Deborah Heller) writes: >In article <7344@chaph.usc.edu> tli%phakt.usc.edu@usc.edu () writes: >> >>This is a call for discussion about the creation of comp.sys.cisco, a >>newsgroup for discussion about products from cisco systems. >> > A news group to discuss brouters, repeaters, protocol converters, etc. > would be a good idea. However, I object to the idea that we start a > news group by concentrating on only one vendor's products. Instead, > the group could be used as a place to discuss this class of products > from any vendor. If the slant happens to wander towards cisco, so be > it... > > There are an awful lot of network products out there that should not > be ignored in news group of such timely significance. For example, > Vitalink and 3COM products come to mind immediately. Deb, So you suggest something like comp.dcom.brouters ? I like it. It would give is one place to discuss all aspects of LAN interconnectivity. That might kill alot more then just one mailing list. I really like it. More ideas? Tom Dixon AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Fl dixon@pdn.paradyne.com
deb@zehntel.zehntel.com (Deborah Heller) (01/16/90)
> I would think that BOTH groups are a good idea. The specialized group > for discussing the particular vendor's products, the general group for > broader subjects. Currently, this traffic is in comp.dcom.lans, which > isn't entirely appropriate. Anyone with a better suggestion? > comp.dcom.hardware? I vote for comp.dcom.cisco with something more like Tom's idea of "comp.dcom.brouters." comp.dcom.hardware is another good one: for discussion of networking hardware problems/solutions and pointers to, perhaps, vendor specific groups such as comp.dcom.cisco. Hmmm... which will it be, comp.dcom.cisco or comp.sys.cisco (I vote for dcom. Seems more appropriate). deb :-} Deborah Heller UUCP: ...!{decwrl,sun}!teraida!deb Teradyne Zehntel Systems Division Phone: (415) 932-6900 2625 Shadelands Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Horse Lovers Are Stable People...
tli@phakt.usc.edu (Tony Li) (01/16/90)
In article <3223@zehntel.UUCP> deb@zehntel.UUCP (Deborah Heller) writes:
I vote for comp.dcom.cisco with something more like
Tom's idea of "comp.dcom.brouters." comp.dcom.hardware is another
good one: for discussion of networking hardware problems/solutions and
pointers to, perhaps, vendor specific groups such as comp.dcom.cisco.
Hmmm... which will it be, comp.dcom.cisco or comp.sys.cisco (I vote for
dcom. Seems more appropriate).
I should point out that there is already a comp.sys.proteon, and that
while cisco's products are for data communications, they are also
computer systems in their own right. Currently, computer system
newsgroups are not separated by the usage of the computer.
Tony Li - USC Computer Science Department
Internet: tli@usc.edu Uucp: usc!tli
Thus spake the master programmer: "A well written program is its own
heaven; a poorly-written program its own hell."dfk@eu.net (Daniel Karrenberg) (01/16/90)
comp.sys.cisco is a good idea. -- Daniel Karrenberg Future Net: <dfk@cwi.nl> CWI, Amsterdam Oldie Net: mcvax!dfk The Netherlands Because It's There Net: DFK@MCVAX
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/16/90)
Comp.sys.cisco makes about as much sense as comp.dcom.telebit. Why not make
a broader group first (comp.dcom.routers?) and then think about splitting
off a vendor-specific group?
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'tli@phakt.usc.edu (Tony Li) (01/17/90)
In article <FO31FGFficc@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
Comp.sys.cisco makes about as much sense as comp.dcom.telebit. Why not make
a broader group first (comp.dcom.routers?) and then think about splitting
off a vendor-specific group?
Because there's already a good hunk of traffic on the vendor specific
mailing list.
Unfortunately, comp.dcom.routers is more specific than it needs to be.
There's a lot more to networking hardware than just routers...
Tony Li - USC Computer Science Department
Internet: tli@usc.edu Uucp: usc!tli
Thus spake the master programmer: "A well written program is its own
heaven; a poorly-written program its own hell."