tli@phakt.usc.edu (Tony Li) (01/15/90)
In article <1263.25b1dee3@csc.anu.oz> pte900@csc.anu.oz writes:
I don't really care whether the group is comp.sys.cisco or comp.dcom.brouters;
but there should be a group for a discussion of such products.
I prefer comp.dcom.brouters for generality,
Unfortunately it's not general enough. As you probably know, there's
already a lot of different hardware in use: terminal servers, IP
routers, DECnet routers, CSU/DSUs, etc. Perhaps a better solution is
comp.dcom.mans?
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."pte900@csc.anu.oz (01/15/90)
I don't really care whether the group is comp.sys.cisco or comp.dcom.brouters; but there should be a group for a discussion of such products. I prefer comp.dcom.brouters for generality,
dixon@gumby.paradyne.com (0000-Tom Dixon(0000)) (01/15/90)
In article <7400@chaph.usc.edu> tli@phakt.usc.edu (Tony Li) writes: >Unfortunately it's not general enough. As you probably know, there's >already a lot of different hardware in use: terminal servers, IP >routers, DECnet routers, CSU/DSUs, etc. Perhaps a better solution is >comp.dcom.mans? ^^^^ Whats a man? >Tony Li - USC Computer Science Department You are probably right. We could use a group to pull the connectivity hardware out of comp.dcom.lans and other groups. I would think that comp.dcom.hardware is too general, since we want to limit the scope to LAN hardware. Is comp.dcom.lans.hardware too long? And if comp.*.novell gets approved, then whats left for comp.dcom.lans? Tom Dixon AT&T Paradyne, Largo, FL dixon@pdn.paradyne.com
tli@phakt.usc.edu (Tony Li) (01/17/90)
In article <6937@pdn.paradyne.com> dixon@gumby.paradyne.com (0000-Tom Dixon) writes: >me: Perhaps a better solution is comp.dcom.mans? ^^^^ Whats a man? A metropolitan area network. We could also use comp.dcom.wans for Wide Area Networks. I would think that comp.dcom.hardware is too general, since we want to limit the scope to LAN hardware. Is comp.dcom.lans.hardware too long? I don't think that it should be under the 'LAN' hierarchy at all. While ciscos are usually connected to a LAN of some sort, they are frequently used to build larger networks (e.g. Los Nettos, Cerfnet). And if comp.*.novell gets approved, then whats left for comp.dcom.lans? Appletalk, Vines, etc. All of the stuff that's there now. 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."