rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (08/07/88)
In article <404@uport.UUCP> plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: > >Hey Guys, > > Did you notice the name of the group you are flaming in? > I didn't think so. Try comp.unix.xenix (or even better, try email) > > -John Plocher Cross posting to .xenix and .microport is needed these days, since the net Gods have seen fit to provide only these two groups for 286 and 386 UNIX'es. Where are Bell Tech, ISC, and Venturcom people to go? How can you discuss the relative merits of each companies offerings without cross posting? With the impending merge of UNIX, it makes more sense to just break the groups as "i286" and "i386". Not only does this break the audience into camps with similar needs and problems, but it also gets rid of the commercial aspects to the existing group names (something that doesn't bother me, but does bother some). -- Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc. (201) 542-3734 (voice, nights) OR (201) 389-8963 (voice, days) uunet!pcrat!rick (UUCP) rick%pcrat.uucp@uunet.uu.net (INTERNET)
howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) (08/08/88)
In article <550@pcrat.UUCP>, rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes: > > With the impending merge of UNIX, it makes more sense to just break > the groups as "i286" and "i386". I think this would be a GREAT IDEA, and I can't believe this is the first time I have ever seen it mentioned on the net. This would certainly allow us to read the information that pertains to our CPU... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP/SMTP : howardl@wb3ffv | Howard D. Leadmon PACKET : WB3FFV @ W3ITM | Fast Computer Service, Inc. IP Address: 44.60.0.1 | P.O. Box 171 Telephone : (301)-335-2206 | Chase, MD 21027-0171
wtr@moss.ATT.COM (08/09/88)
In article <722@wb3ffv.UUCP> howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) writes: >In article <550@pcrat.UUCP>, rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes: >> With the impending merge of UNIX, it makes more sense to just break >> the groups as "i286" and "i386". > I think this would be a GREAT IDEA, and I can't believe this is the first >time I have ever seen it mentioned on the net. This would certainly allow >us to read the information that pertains to our CPU... this idea has been gone over and argued multiple times, and was discussed heavily when this newsgroup was formed. it's a BAD idea for this reason: it would put the XENIX camp in with the INTERACTIVE port team (microport/bell tech/etc..). [prepare asbestos suit / install sprinklers in mailbox ] would all the would-be prophets of the XENIX world stop their **garbage** postings in comp.unix.microport! i have purchased microport and am looking for support, hints, and fixes in this newsgroup. I am *not* looking for some XENIX dweeb expounding upon the virtues of his system over microports. this is especially true when he/she/it apparently has little direct experience with microport. go home. if you have information about microport / bell tech, then feel free to post it here, it's very welcome. if you just want to throw your shoulder out of joint patting yourself on the back, do it in your own yard. [if someone wants to take this one up, email it] ===================================================================== Bill Rankin Bell Labs, Whippany NJ (201) 386-4154 (cornet 232) email address: ...![ att ulysses ucbvax allegra ]!moss!wtr ...![ att ucbvax akgua watmath ]!clyde!wtr =====================================================================
dar@belltec.UUCP (Dimitri Rotow) (08/10/88)
In article <550@pcrat.UUCP>, rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes: > In article <404@uport.UUCP> plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: > > > With the impending merge of UNIX, it makes more sense to just break > the groups as "i286" and "i386". > Yes! At least the "generic" UNIX's are more alike than different on the 80386. Release 3.2 will make it even more so (and whether you get it from Interactive, Microport or anyone else, Release 3.2 is a *barnburner*!).
rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (08/13/88)
In article <31060@clyde.ATT.COM> wtr@moss.UUCP (Bill Rankin) writes: >In article <722@wb3ffv.UUCP> howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) writes: >>In article <550@pcrat.UUCP>, rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes: > >>> With the impending merge of UNIX, it makes more sense to just break >>> the groups as "i286" and "i386". > >this idea has been gone over and argued multiple times, and was >discussed heavily when this newsgroup was formed. it's a BAD idea >for this reason: it would put the XENIX camp in with the INTERACTIVE >port team (microport/bell tech/etc..). > >would all the would-be prophets of the XENIX world stop >their **garbage** postings in comp.unix.microport! I remember the multiple times it has been discussed. But times have changed. I don't own either Microport or Xenix, for either of my 286 or 386 machines. Yet I have UNIX ports that run on both. (Well, not true, I do own a copy of Microport V/AT, I just don't use it!). You want vendor specific groups for support, which is reasonable. But you don't want the vendor bashing in your support group. Other people do want the vendor bashing, and comparisons, etc. so they can make intelligent (?) decisions. OK, so let's make these groups: comp.unix.xenix Discussions about the XENIX O.S. comp.unix.microport Discussions about Microport's UNIX comp.unix.i286 General discussions of any *NIX on the Intel 80286 comp.unix.i386 General discussions of any *NIX on the Intel 80386 With any luck, the comparisons, bashing, et all can go on in the generic groups. Leaving your sanctioned 'support' groups free from clutter. And then there is the potential for a dos_unix (DOS under UNIX) group, for VP/ix and Merge discussions. But lets get the first four groups under control once and for all, first. -- Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc. (201) 542-3734 (voice, nights) OR (201) 389-8963 (voice, days) uunet!pcrat!rick (UUCP) rick%pcrat.uucp@uunet.uu.net (INTERNET)
howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) (08/15/88)
In article <552@pcrat.UUCP>, rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes: > > OK, so let's make these groups: > > comp.unix.xenix Discussions about the XENIX O.S. > comp.unix.microport Discussions about Microport's UNIX > comp.unix.i286 General discussions of any *NIX on the Intel 80286 > comp.unix.i386 General discussions of any *NIX on the Intel 80386 > > Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc. Well this may be OK, but I would rather see it broke down into the different vendor catagories under the specific processors. Here is an example of what I mean: comp.unix.i286 General 80286 UNIX discussions comp.unix.i386 General 80386 UNIX discussions comp.unix.i286.microport For System V/AT comp.unix.i386.microport For System V/386 comp.unix.i386.ix For IX from Interactive for the 80386 comp.unix.i286.xenix For 80286 Xenix comp.unix.1386.xenix For 80386 Xenix I know this idea will create a half dozen new groups, but it will certanly keep similar interests togeather. Also there should be no big deal about several subdivisions, it's only a couple extra subdirectories on our systems :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP/SMTP : howardl@wb3ffv | Howard D. Leadmon PACKET : WB3FFV @ W3ITM | Fast Computer Service, Inc. IP Address: 44.60.0.1 | P.O. Box 171 Telephone : (301)-335-2206 | Chase, MD 21027-0171
john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) (08/16/88)
In article <728@wb3ffv.UUCP>, howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) writes: > Well this may be OK, but I would rather see it broke down into the > different vendor catagories under the specific processors. > [ list of 7 newsgroups ] > I know this idea will create a half dozen new groups, but it will certanly > keep similar interests togeather. This is the opposite direction that I feel we should be going. With the 2.3 release of SCO Xenix, Xenix and the other 386 Unixes will be much more similar, so I think that either the pair comp.unix.i286 comp.unix.i386 should be created, or one group should be created, merging comp.unix.xenix, comp.unix.microport, and the info-386ix mailing list. I don't have a good name for it, but something like comp.unix.i86 or comp.unix.intel might do. (Certainly the occasional Xenix/86 question is welcome.) Comments? -- John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US SMART HOUSE L.P. uunet!jetson!john (old uucp) +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net (old internet)
brian@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Brian Cuthie) (08/16/88)
In article <728@wb3ffv.UUCP> howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) writes: > Well this may be OK, but I would rather see it broke down into the >different vendor catagories under the specific processors. Here is an >example of what I mean: > >comp.unix.i286 General 80286 UNIX discussions >comp.unix.i386 General 80386 UNIX discussions >comp.unix.i286.microport For System V/AT >comp.unix.i386.microport For System V/386 >comp.unix.i386.ix For IX from Interactive for the 80386 >comp.unix.i286.xenix For 80286 Xenix >comp.unix.1386.xenix For 80386 Xenix > > I know this idea will create a half dozen new groups, but it will certanly >keep similar interests togeather. Also there should be no big deal about >several subdivisions, it's only a couple extra subdirectories on our systems :-) This idea sounds good on the surface, but I suggest that it would be about the worst thing that could be done. There are two main problems (as I see it, anyway): 1. It would be necessary to cross post most articles to several groups since many articles would cross group boundaries. 2. If you don't cross post, then I'm forced to read about 4 news groups to be sure that I haven't missed something. I think the *real* problem could be solved by having one additional group called "comp.unix.microport.flames" When you look at the amount of traffic in this group that actually has any content it's nil. *Most* of the articles are running debates over such technically important issues as "Bell Tech Pricing." I don't know about you, but I got the point after the first 500 postings. What is really needed is an alternate news group where the non-technical issues can be discussed without causing undue stress on my 'n' key. Of course I realize that this posting, in itself, is somewhat hypocritical :-) Maybe a 1 hour delay on the 'F' key would help. -brian