vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) (08/16/88)
In article <101@jetson.UPMA.MD.US> john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) writes:
# comp.unix.i286
# comp.unix.i386
This is what I proposed some months back; noone was quite happy with it. I
want to see some discussions in news.groups about this -- everybody was more
than happy to toast me for suggesting this last time; I want those flames
to reappear and devour eachother.
To wit:
comp.unix.microport destroy
comp.unix.xenix destroy
comp.unix.sysv.i286 new group, moderated if some silly person
volunteers; for discussion of all 286 UNIX
System V software. (286 UNIX variants are
more like eachother than they are like any-
thing else.)
comp.unix.sysv.i386 new group, moderated if some idiot wants the
job. rationale similar to .i286 above. I
will dissolve (mostly) my info-386ix@vixie
mailing list if this is created; I withdraw
my previous offer to moderate the group, tho.
For those of you who dislike four-component names -- I am still hoping for a
native 386/AT port of BSD to come into existence, and I want to leave room
in the name space early on.
For those of you who want groups named after products or companies -- go play
in the biz.all hierarchy; this is Usenet.
For those of you who have well-considered alternatives to what I propose --
speak up! I especially want to hear from Bill Davidsen (sp), in case he has
an idea for where 386users can fit into all this.
Don't send me mail, I won't summarize, please have a public flame fest.
(Speaking as an individual, not an employee or spokesman of DEC.)
--
Paul Vixie
Digital Equipment Corporation Work: vixie@dec.com Play: paul@vixie.UUCP
Western Research Laboratory uunet!decwrl!vixie uunet!vixie!paul
Palo Alto, California, USA +1 415 853 6600 +1 415 864 7013vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) (08/19/88)
In article <182@visenix.UUCP> beattie@visenix.UUCP (Brian Beattie) writes:
# > comp.unix.microport destroy
# > comp.unix.xenix destroy
# This proposal assumes that Xenix will become so much like
# Intel/Microport/ATT/ISC that the groups will completely overlap
# I find this doubtfull. I believe that Microsoft will continue
# to have significant differences from the V/AT and V/386 products.
I am convinced by this argument of the need for
comp.unix.sysv.i286
comp.unix.sysv.i386
comp.unix.sysv.xenix
That is: okay, I'll take your word for the fact that Xenix will always be
bizarre. Let's give it its own group. All other 286 ports are basically
alike, as are all other 386 ports.
With trivial effort, I can be convinced that xenix does not belong in .sysv.
--
Paul Vixie
Digital Equipment Corporation Work: vixie@dec.com Play: paul@vixie.UUCP
Western Research Laboratory uunet!decwrl!vixie uunet!vixie!paul
Palo Alto, California, USA +1 415 853 6600 +1 415 864 7013