manoj@excelan.COM (manoj @ Prod Mktg) (12/22/89)
###################
CALL FOR DISCUSSION
###################
###################################
comp.sys.netware
###################################
Why add a new group?
A forum to discuss technical and non-technical issues specific to
the Novell's Netware family of Local Area and Wide Area Networking products.
These include Netware286, Netware386, Portable Netware, Communication products,
Database products, Excelan LAN WorkPlace family (TCP/IP) etc. etc.
The creation of this forum will allow the Novell Netware enthusiasts
at USENET their own forum to discuss items of a non-technical nature
(how to use software packages, what networking card to buy, etc)
and items of a technical nature (what's wrong with this code?, how do I use
this toolkit call?, etc.), thus reducing the amount of time spent sorting
through multiple groups on protocols, lans, ibmpc, tcp-ip.
THIS IS NOT A CALL FOR VOTES; please do not send votes. Usenet
newsgroup creation guidelines do not allow premature votes to be
counted. A call for votes will be posted in Jan 1990, unless major issues
remain unresolved through those dates. Issues to be resolved are:
o What, if any, type of group to create.
o What to call this group: comp.sys.netware
o Whether the group should be moderated: NO.
o The group's charter: see above, please discuss revisions.
Followups are directed to news.groups. Please include news.groups in
all related discussion; please minimize cross-postings to the lan, protocols,
tcp-ip, ibmpc, nfs related groups..
Netware readers interested in this discussion should follow news.groups for
the next 2-4 weeks.
Regards!
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|manoj goel |Disclaimer: the ideas are mine and not my employer's.. |
|NOVELL Inc., |Internet: manoj@excelan.com |
|2180 Fortune Drive,|UUCP: {ames,sun,apple,amdahl,cae780}!excelan!manoj |
|San Jose, CA 95131 |voice: 408.473.8369 fax: 408.433.0775 |
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
+---+
manoj goel, | +-+-+
Product Marketing +-+-+ |
Excelan/Novell, San Jose, CA +---+
(408) 473-8369 (voice) / 433-0775 (fax)
___________________________________________________________________________
When all else fails, read the instructions!chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (12/23/89)
Shouldn't this be a subgroup of dcom or lan? Seems to be more appropriate than comp.sys. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] An argument requires two voices. Without the opposition, it's just a whine. To argue, you have to listen to and rebut the opposition. Most USENET arguments aren't. They're simply two monologues happening at once.
news@excelan.COM (The News Manager) (12/23/89)
> Shouldn't this be a subgroup of dcom or lan? Seems to be more appropriate > than comp.sys. From: manoj@excelan.COM (manoj @ Prod Mktg) Path: manoj Those were some of the options I considered. However, Netware offers more than LAN i.e. Wide area networking (X.25 etc..) Also Novell offers non-dcom products (such as Data base servers etc..) making DCOM subgroup inappropriate Overall Netware as a system offers a platform with networking and communication, Mail handling, multiple protocol stacks, hardware independence, data base etc.. and a SYS group sounded more appropriate than a PROTOCOLS or LAN or DCOM group. +---+ manoj goel, | +-+-+ Product Marketing +-+-+ | Excelan/Novell, San Jose, CA +---+ (408) 473-8369 (voice) / 433-0775 (fax) ___________________________________________________________________________ When all else fails, read the instructions!
lear@genbank.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) (12/23/89)
dcom is far better than with the continued polution of sys with software. So I would strongly suggest comp.dcom.netware, to the point that I'd rather have no group than comp.sys.netware. What about comp.software.networking? -- Eliot Lear [lear@net.bio.net]
benderly@cs.columbia.edu (Dan Benderly) (12/23/89)
Sounds great to me! Seems that what you have is just perfect, although you may want to make it a subset of comp.dcom.lans (I don't know if that is possible). Looking forward to the new group! Dan benderly@cs.columbia.edu
asp@uunet.UU.NET (Andrew Partan) (12/23/89)
In article <914@excelan.COM>, manoj@excelan.COM (manoj @ Prod Mktg) writes: > CALL FOR DISCUSSION [for] comp.sys.netware How about comp.sys.novell? I have always heard of Novell networks, never 'netware' networks. comp.sys.novell would probably lead to less confusion. --asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan) ASN.1 Object Identifier: "{joint-iso-ccitt mhs(6) group(6) 157}"
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (12/24/89)
If it's about Novell products, as the charter suggests, it should be called comp.sys.novell, in the same way that most other supplier-orientated groups are named - comp.sys.sun etc. If the range of Novell systems that are discussed is so wide and the interest so high that comp.sys.novell gets too much traffic, subgroups such as comp.sys.novell.netware could be created later. Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW Living in a country without a written constitution means having to trust in the Good Will of the Government and the Generosity of Civil Servants.
" Maynard) (12/24/89)
In article <Dec.22.16.55.46.1989.20053@genbank.BIO.NET> lear@genbank.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) writes: >dcom is far better than with the continued polution of sys with >software. So I would strongly suggest comp.dcom.netware, to the point >that I'd rather have no group than comp.sys.netware. What about >comp.software.networking? After thinking about it, I agree that comp.sys is the wrong place for it; where we differ is that I think comp.dcom[.lan] is wrong too, since NetWare is more than a LAN, too: it's an operating system. Perhaps comp.os.netware, or comp.soft-sys.netware? -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...
dixon@gumby.paradyne.com (Tom Dixon(813-530-8358)) (12/27/89)
In article <914@excelan.COM> manoj@excelan.COM (manoj @ Prod Mktg) writes: > CALL FOR DISCUSSION > comp.sys.netware My 28 cents worth.... 1. novell instead of netware. As someone else said, it's not comp.sys.SunOS. 2. I also would prefer it if this was not a sys group. The sys groups are beginning to streched way out of proportion. But novell is not specific to any one hardware platform, protocol or OS. It is an Network Operating System. So if we can either set it up as something catchy, like: comp.netos.novell Or we can lump it in the sys group. So my prefencences.... 1. comp.netos.novell 2. comp.sys.novell 3. comp.*.netware But all in all, I'd say it's an idea whose time has come. --------- Tom Dixon dixon@pdn.paradyne.com AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Fla uunet!pdn!dixon (813)530-8358
chk@alias.UUCP (C. Harald Koch) (12/28/89)
In article <914@excelan.COM> manoj@excelan.COM (manoj @ Prod Mktg) writes: > > CALL FOR DISCUSSION > > comp.sys.netware This has probably been said, but this should be in comp.dcom, possibly even under comp.dcom.lans. It is not really a 'sys' group. -- C. Harald Koch Alias Research, Inc., Toronto ON Canada chk%alias@csri.utoronto.ca chk@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu chk@chk.mef.org "There is no problem, no matter how large or how small, that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives." -Leo Graf, 2298
morgan@jessica.Stanford.EDU (RL "Bob" Morgan) (12/28/89)
> Issues to be resolved are: > o What, if any, type of group to create. I wholeheartedly support the creation of such a group. The Netware-related traffic in comp.dcom.lans alone is more than enough to justify such a group. I'm gald to see someone at Novell (even if it's really excelan.com) taking the bull by the horns. > o What to call this group: comp.sys.netware I suggest "comp.os.netware". It appears to me that if "comp.sys.xyz" is a group, "xyz" is a type of hardware or a manufacturer of hardware. Netware is fundamentally an operating system: it provides a kernel that manages processor, storage, and communication resources, utilities for use and management of same, etc. But then I'm one of the dwindling number of traditionalists who think that "local area network" describes something, mostly hardware, that allows frames of data to be transmitted among multiple local stations, not software that provides file service, print service, mail service, etc. > o Whether the group should be moderated: NO. I agree. > o The group's charter: see above, please discuss revisions. Looks good to me. - RL "Bob" Morgan Networking Systems Stanford
emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (12/28/89)
There exists already a 'bit.listserv.novell' group at my site, which is a gateway from a BITNET list. The quality of discussion and range of topics seems to be similar to that which is proposed. The home of it appears to be NOVELL@SUVM. Better to merge or gateway this group / list than to start a new one. --Ed
jqj@rt-jqj.stanford.edu (JQ Johnson) (12/29/89)
Although I support the creation of a Netware news group, I believe the proposed charter of the group is wrong. Many products marketed by Novell are primarily non-Netware, e.g. the Kinetics Fastpath, and most of the Excelan product line. Such products are best discussed on existing groups, e.g. comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc, comp.dcom.lans, etc. Most (though not all!) Netware customers don't care about Fastpaths, and most Mac networking people don't care about differences between 2.15 and 2.1. I would of course expect a lot of cross-posting, not just with comp.dcom.lans but with virtually every other comp. news group (e.g. comp.databases). In other words, I believe that the central focus of the new group should be Netware as a LAN OS, not Novell products. As such, I would think that it would also reasonably include discussion of Netware for VMS and 3rd-party products targetted at the Netware marketplace. I also believe that it would probably be better to have the new group someplace other than under comp.sys. A Novell news group should be biz.comp.novell; a netware newsgroup such as I envision might be comp.sys.netware, but it might also be comp.os.netware (with a breadth similar to that of comp.os.vms) or someplace else. Note that there is currently a BITNET listserv group devoted to Netware as well as a quite active compuserve newsgroup. Any plan for a Netware USEnet newsgroup should resolve the issues of gatewaying among the various forums and the degree of Novell committment to participation in the discussions (no, I don't have a proposal). JQ Johnson voice: 415-723-3078 Manager, Special Projects Internet: jqj@jessica.stanford.edu Networking and Communications Systems Pine Hall Rm 125-A Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-4122
dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) (12/30/89)
Last time I looked, Netware was an operating system. Not exactly like
Unix, but that's the closest label that I would apply.
Novell sells things other than operating systems, such as database
servers, etc. However, those products are not Netware. (Although
many may have Netware in their name.)
In any case, I would think that the most obvious place for a group
would be comp.os.netware. Second would be comp.dcom.netware or
comp.protocols.netware. (Neither is good.) Last place would be
comp.sys.netware.
I support the group, BTW.
--
Craig Jackson
dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com
{bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}alex@xicom.uucp (Alex Laney) (01/03/90)
I think it is a good idea, except for the name. I am one of those people who doesn't necessarily pick the simplest solution ... I guess I wonder why there is comp.dcom.xxx and comp.protocols.xxx when something like comp.network.xxx could be in place. Therefore, I propose that comp.network.novell or comp.network.netware be created instead of comp.sys.netware. Now, I was on this network when the change from mod.xxx to xxx.xxx happened, and I can understand the intent. comp.protocols.tcp might have been for discussion of the software issues, and comp.dcom.lans for discussion of LAN's, but it just causes posting to wrong newsgroups, and making it harder to find the right person to answer a question, etc., etc. There are lots of TCP-IP networks around, and SNA networks and discussion of connection issues, etc, in the comp.protocols subtree. So, to sum up, I suggest a new subtree under comp, network, and as its first member put netware. Let's talk about it ... -- Alex Laney, Xicom Group, National Semiconductor, Ottawa, Canada (613) 728-9099 uunet!mitel!sce!xicom!alex (alex@xicom.uucp) Fax: (613) 728-1134 "You save time, increase the amount of work done and it is easy."