peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/24/89)
No fancy stuff, this time. 90% of the stuff in comp.unix.xenix these days seems to be related to System V/386 and relatives. Since even SCO is going to be dropping the Xenix name from this offering, I'd like to propose that a new group be created to suck up the 386 chatter. No fancy stuff. No old groups going away. comp.unix.xenix and .microport are perfectly good for dealing with the two main branches of 286 unix, and the Tandy 6000 people. Just a new comp.unix.i386. Voting starts February 1st, and continues to March 2nd. Votes received before and after this period will be ignored. I'm not going to pay any attention to naming or hierarchy suggestions unless there seems to be a consensus that sysv386 or sysv.386 or whatever is unequivocally superior. This one is gonna be by the book. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.
vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) (01/25/89)
As the moderator of the <info-386ix@vixie.sf.ca.us> mailing list, I want to publically state my opinion of the proposal for a comp.unix.i386 group: * * * * I Am For It. * * * * I have 200 addressses on my mailing list, with about 20 addresses that flit in and out of existence from one month to the next. (A different 20 each month, of course). I have suggested a comp.unix.i386 group twice in this forum (news.groups), and have watched others suggest it at least two other times. I have virtually no hope that the group will be created this time, but I would be very happy to be surprised. When I put this question to my 200 subscribers and asked for opinions, with silence implying agreement, about five people, mostly overseas, said that they didn't get Usenet and that they hoped I would forward the traffic for them. I promised that I would do this. Therefore we have approximately 195 "yes" votes for the comp.unix.i386 group, though for the sake of measurement error I will knock it down to 100. Other than this message and response to specific replies to its content, I refuse to discuss the creation of comp.unix.i386. Don't send me mail, I won't read it. I am a passive observer to this process; mail regarding the vote should be sent to Peter da Silva, <peter@ficc.uu.net>. -- Paul Vixie Work: vixie@decwrl.dec.com decwrl!vixie +1 415 853 6600 Play: paul@vixie.sf.ca.us vixie!paul +1 415 864 7013
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (01/26/89)
In article <2850@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >No fancy stuff, this time. 90% of the stuff in comp.unix.xenix these days >seems to be related to System V/386 and relatives. Since even SCO is going >to be dropping the Xenix name from this offering, I'd like to propose that >a new group be created to suck up the 386 chatter. > >No fancy stuff. No old groups going away. comp.unix.xenix and .microport >are perfectly good for dealing with the two main branches of 286 unix, and >the Tandy 6000 people. Just a new comp.unix.i386. Great! I've been looking for an unmoderated forum where Sun386i users can discuss their problems, and talk about how glad they are that there's finally a 386 machine running BSD. Also, I'm sure the folks with the new Sequent machines would have a few comments to throw in from time to time, cross-posted to comp.sys.sequent, naturally. Care to give that name a little more thought, Peter? >Voting starts February 1st, and continues to March 2nd. Votes received before >and after this period will be ignored. I'm not going to pay any attention >to naming or hierarchy suggestions unless there seems to be a consensus that >sysv386 or sysv.386 or whatever is unequivocally superior. > >This one is gonna be by the book. Right. So we're going to have the 30-day discussion period between now and Feb. 1, is that it? Which book was that? Sarcasm aside, unless you want this group to be a forum for discussion of *all* 386-based Unix machines, I'd suggest finding some other name. If you don't mind the Roadrunner folks dropping in, I retract the suggestion and would welcome the group. May Klortho Bless and Protect You, Dave Mack
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (01/26/89)
In article <VIXIE.89Jan25002308@bacchus.pa.dec.com> vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes: >As the moderator of the <info-386ix@vixie.sf.ca.us> mailing list, I want to >publically state my opinion of the proposal for a comp.unix.i386 group: > * * * * I Am For It. * * * * At this rate we're gonna rate a few new chapters in the UseNet history as the group most asked for but settled for something else :-) I'll go on record (again) as a firm supporter/suggester of this group. I was for it a year and a half ago when when it was first suggested, I'm still for it, and I hope that I won't have to be for it a year from now. Please, let's just get it done with. We need one group to collect the postings for 386 based unix ramblings. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/26/89)
[description of System V/386 group deleted] In article <4379@inco.UUCP>, mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes a rather nasty response to my proposal. [ sarcastic comments about exotic 386-based boxes ] > Care to give that name a little more thought, Peter? Sure. I don't care what it's called, but since the naming question trashed the last two discussions I'd rather sit back and wait for a consensus, as I say here... > >Voting starts February 1st, and continues to March 2nd. Votes received before > >and after this period will be ignored. I'm not going to pay any attention > >to naming or hierarchy suggestions unless there seems to be a consensus that > >sysv386 or sysv.386 or whatever is unequivocally superior. > >This one is gonna be by the book. > Right. So we're going to have the 30-day discussion period between now > and Feb. 1, is that it? Which book was that? The last time I checked the book it was a 7-day discussion period, but if it's been changed I am quite willing to move the voting period up to the month of March. > Sarcasm aside, Right... > unless you want this group to be a forum for discussion > of *all* 386-based Unix machines, I'd suggest finding some other name. Fine. Suggest a name that is unequivocally superior and get people to agree on it. I don't care. I just want to count the votes. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.
eric@egsner.UUCP (Eric Schnoebelen) (01/27/89)
In article <2892@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
-In article <4379@inco.UUCP>, mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes
-> Care to give that name a little more thought, Peter?
-
-> unless you want this group to be a forum for discussion
-> of *all* 386-based Unix machines, I'd suggest finding some other name.
-
-Fine. Suggest a name that is unequivocally superior and get people to
-agree on it. I don't care. I just want to count the votes.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing information about the other
386 based Unix's. Comp.unix.xenix has a nice smattering of postings
about the various Xenix's ( eg. Tandy 6000, IBM PC-Clone, Altos ), so
what would be wrong with comp.unix.i386 supporting all 386 based Unix's?
It would be nice to have just one group to read for information
about 386 based Unix's, instead of having to read both
comp.unix.microport and comp.unix.xenix, plus several other possibly
useful groups.
just my two bits....
Eric
--
Eric Schnoebelen
egsner!eric@texbell.uucp ...!texbell!egsner!eric
egs@u-word.dallas.tx.us ...!killer!u-word!egs
"All this science, I can't understand; It's just my job 5 days a week"bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (01/28/89)
In article <2175@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes:
: Please, let's just get it done with. We need one group to collect the
: postings for 386 based unix ramblings.
Agreed.
Though I have no experience with 286 based UNIX's, it is clear from
the contents of comp.unix.microport that their characteristics are
quite a bit different from 386 UNIX's. And since the group has a
reasonably high volume, with both systems having significant
representation, it makes sense to somehow separate off one or the
other.
After the fiasco of trying to rationalize the newsgroups for these,
it does not make sense to try to get it perfect; it is enough just to
make it better.
Oh yes, this sort of discussion belongs only in news.groups.
Follow-ups have been redirected there, please respect this.
---
Bill
{ uunet!proxftl | novavax } !twwells!billcsu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) (01/29/89)
In article <2892@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >[description of System V/386 group deleted] > >In article <4379@inco.UUCP>, mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes a rather nasty >response to my proposal. I suppose I should have thrown in a few smileys. I didn't think they were necessary. It was clear from your message that (as you indicate in the elision above) the group you are proposing would focus on System V and Xenix 386 systems. I was simply trying to point out that not all the world is SysV and Xenix, nor are all 386 boxes PC clones. >> Care to give that name a little more thought, Peter? > >Sure. I don't care what it's called, but since the naming question trashed >the last two discussions I'd rather sit back and wait for a consensus, as >I say here... And you proposed the same name as the last few times? Interesting. >> >Voting starts February 1st, and continues to March 2nd. Votes received before >> >and after this period will be ignored. I'm not going to pay any attention >> >to naming or hierarchy suggestions unless there seems to be a consensus that >> >sysv386 or sysv.386 or whatever is unequivocally superior. > >> >This one is gonna be by the book. > >> Right. So we're going to have the 30-day discussion period between now >> and Feb. 1, is that it? Which book was that? > >The last time I checked the book it was a 7-day discussion period, but >if it's been changed I am quite willing to move the voting period up to >the month of March. Your book is obsolete. The 30-day voting period is called for in the new users documentation Gene Spafford posts every month or so. Although, given the increasing prevalence of NNTP links, maybe this should be reduced. >> unless you want this group to be a forum for discussion >> of *all* 386-based Unix machines, I'd suggest finding some other name. > >Fine. Suggest a name that is unequivocally superior and get people to >agree on it. I don't care. I just want to count the votes. OK, no problem. Dave Mack