[net.news.group] How about... net.unix.xenix

gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (04/11/86)

In article <> gemini@homxb.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes:
>I would like to see a group "net.micro.unix" created (NOT net.micro.xenix).
>The groups charter would be for and about uses of all versions of UNIX
>on single user computers.  I think that the breadth of machines and
>UNIX ports which this group would justify its existance.  Some of the
>machines that I think fit into this category are: IBM PC/AT, Tandy,
>AT&T PC6300+, AT&T UNIX PC, DEC PRO.  Some of the UNIX ports that fit are:
>MS-Xenix (3 or SVR2), SCO-Xenix, Venix (2 or SVR2), AT&T OS-Merge,
>AT&T UNIX SVR2.

Uh, I run a single user Unix system (Sun-3) which is a micro (68020).
But somehow I don't think I'd feel part of your net.micro.unix group.

I'd rather you called it net.unix.xenix which is really more what it
is for (relatively dumb questions, in the spectrum of Unix expertise,
about xeniX systems).

Of course, it won't help all the folks whose first question is "How
come netnews won't run on my xeniX machine?"...  (Ans: apparently
a 4K stack is considered extravagant on these machines.)

Let's not make it a mod group -- it's too hard to post to them and
you can't cross-post.  Though this seems to be considered an advantage,
I'd prefer that things got filtered on their content rather than on
how much attention you've paid to setting up the moderators file,
finding routes between hither and yon, etc.
-- 
John Gilmore  {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu   jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa
			     Post no bills.

campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (04/12/86)

> In article <> gemini@homxb.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes:
> >I would like to see a group "net.micro.unix" created (NOT net.micro.xenix).
> >The groups charter would be for and about uses of all versions of UNIX
> >on single user computers.  I think that the breadth of machines and
> >UNIX ports which this group would justify its existance.  Some of the
> >machines that I think fit into this category are: IBM PC/AT, Tandy,
> >AT&T PC6300+, AT&T UNIX PC, DEC PRO.  Some of the UNIX ports that fit are:
> >MS-Xenix (3 or SVR2), SCO-Xenix, Venix (2 or SVR2), AT&T OS-Merge,
> >AT&T UNIX SVR2.
> 
> Uh, I run a single user Unix system (Sun-3) which is a micro (68020).
> But somehow I don't think I'd feel part of your net.micro.unix group.
> 
> I'd rather you called it net.unix.xenix which is really more what it
> is for (relatively dumb questions, in the spectrum of Unix expertise,
> about xeniX systems).
> ...
> -- 
> John Gilmore  {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu   jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa

As difficult as this is for some to believe, XENIX is not the only
UNIX available for PC-like machines.  There are also VENIX (which I
use on a DEC Rainbow) and PC/IX.  I also don't understand why you
assume users of XENIX, VENIX, and PC/IX would ask "relatively dumb
questions"...  just because I can't afford $13,000 for my own personal
Sun-3 doesn't mean I don't know a lot about UNIX.

Anyway, as far as the group name goes, I think net.micro.unix is
reasonably appropriate.  Most people think of Suns as "workstations",
not "micros".  If net.micro.unix is really disliked widely, how about
net.small-unix or net.tiny-unix?  Just don't put Microsoft advertising
in the name...

-- 
Larry Campbell                                 The Boston Software Works, Inc.
ARPA: maynard.UUCP:campbell@harvard.ARPA       120 Fulton Street
UUCP: {harvard,cbosgd}!wjh12!maynard!campbell  Boston MA 02109

ben@catnip.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (04/12/86)

In article <683@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>In article <> gemini@homxb.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes:
>>I would like to see a group "net.micro.unix" created (NOT net.micro.xenix).
>
>Uh, I run a single user Unix system (Sun-3) which is a micro (68020).
>But somehow I don't think I'd feel part of your net.micro.unix group.
>
>I'd rather you called it net.unix.xenix which is really more what it
>is for (relatively dumb questions, in the spectrum of Unix expertise,
>about xeniX systems).
>
>Of course, it won't help all the folks whose first question is "How
>come netnews won't run on my xeniX machine?"...  (Ans: apparently
>a 4K stack is considered extravagant on these machines.)

Netnews runs beautifully on Xenix based computers.  This machine is
PC AT, it has the complete 2.10.3 distribution (except pathalias)
running, including rn.  It required almost no hacking at the source to
bring it up.

The confusion over stack size is a result of poor documentation; if you
want a 4k stack just type:  cc -F 4000   and you will get one.

Admittedly, Xenix versions running on the Intel 286 chips are somewhat
handicapped by the segmented architecture of this chip, and I understand
that there are some problems with the large and huge memory models of
the compiler.  But I brought up news with the small and middle models
and haven't had a problem yet.  And many version of Xenix run on 68000
based computers and are blissfully free of these problems.

I know the SUN is an expensive machine, but don't you think you are being
a little snooty about this?


-- 

Ben Broder
{ihnp4,decvax} !hjuxa!catnip!ben
{houxm,topaz}/

mike@rlgvax.UUCP (Mike Shaffer) (04/16/86)

> In article <683@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
> >In article <> gemini@homxb.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes:
> >>I would like to see a group "net.micro.unix" created (NOT net.micro.xenix).
> >
> >Uh, I run a single user Unix system (Sun-3) which is a micro (68020).
> >But somehow I don't think I'd feel part of your net.micro.unix group.
> >
> >I'd rather you called it net.unix.xenix which is really more what it
> >is for (relatively dumb questions, in the spectrum of Unix expertise,
> >about xeniX systems).
> >
> >Of course, it won't help all the folks whose first question is "How
> >come netnews won't run on my xeniX machine?"...  (Ans: apparently
> >a 4K stack is considered extravagant on these machines.)
> 
> Netnews runs beautifully on Xenix based computers.  This machine is
> PC AT, it has the complete 2.10.3 distribution (except pathalias)
> running, including rn.  It required almost no hacking at the source to
> bring it up.
> 
> The confusion over stack size is a result of poor documentation; if you
> want a 4k stack just type:  cc -F 4000   and you will get one.
> 
> Admittedly, Xenix versions running on the Intel 286 chips are somewhat
> handicapped by the segmented architecture of this chip, and I understand
> that there are some problems with the large and huge memory models of
> the compiler.  But I brought up news with the small and middle models
> and haven't had a problem yet.  And many version of Xenix run on 68000
> based computers and are blissfully free of these problems.
> 
> I know the SUN is an expensive machine, but don't you think you are being
> a little snooty about this?
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Ben Broder

I have a network of Vax 780s running at MY house. After all, one
MUST have a REAL machine in each room. In spite of my obvious
superiority I would still like to see a micro.unix so that I
may read about what the poor folks are doing. :-)

Mike Shaffer, CCI Reston VA

davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (Davidsen) (05/01/86)

In article <281@maynard.UUCP> campbell@maynard.UUCP writes:
>> In article <> gemini@homxb.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes:
>> >I would like to see a group "net.micro.unix" created (NOT net.micro.xenix).
>> 
>> Uh, I run a single user Unix system (Sun-3) which is a micro (68020).
>> But somehow I don't think I'd feel part of your net.micro.unix group.
>> 
>> I'd rather you called it net.unix.xenix which is really more what it
>> is for (relatively dumb questions, in the spectrum of Unix expertise,
>> about xeniX systems).
>> ...
>> -- 
>> John Gilmore  {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu   jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa
>

I am a member of an organization which supports UNIX machines from XT's
to two Cray2's, providing either total support or system utilities. We
have our share of VAXEN and Sun2/3's, and I find no correlation between
the level of the questions and the size of the machine (or number of
users). We already get enough duplication and missed data between
micro, unix. and unix.wizards groups without adding another!
-- 
	-bill davidsen

	seismo!rochester!steinmetz!--\
       /                               \
ihnp4!              unirot ------------->---> crdos1!davidsen
       \                               /
        chinet! ---------------------/        (davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA)

"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward"