denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) (12/29/87)
Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? The idea being to separate discussions of the 3b1/7300 machines (which are much more oriented toward personal computer use), from those of the 3b2s, 3b5s, etc. (oriented toward business/development use). The amount of 3b1 traffic makes it difficult for those only interested in the larger machines, and I would guess that a lot of 3b1 owners aren't really interested in the 3b2+ machines. -- Denny Page Martha, the Clones are loose again!
rkh@mtune.ATT.COM (Robert Halloran) (12/30/87)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? > >The idea being to separate discussions of the 3b1/7300 machines (which >are much more oriented toward personal computer use), from those of the >3b2s, 3b5s, etc. (oriented toward business/development use). > >The amount of 3b1 traffic makes it difficult for those only interested >in the larger machines, and I would guess that a lot of 3b1 owners aren't >really interested in the 3b2+ machines. There are a set of 'unix-pc' groups already operating; sources, general, uucp, and test. You might want to contact your news feeds to see if they carry them or could arrange to carry them. It is my understanding that UUNET does forward them, if that's any help. Bob Halloran Distributed Programming Tools Group ========================================================================= Bang-ist: {ATT-ACC, rutgers}!mtune!rkh DDD: (201)957-6034 At-ist: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM USPS: AT&T IS Labs, 200 Laurel Ave Rm 3G-314 Middletown NJ 07748 Disclaimer: These opinions are solely MINE; any correlation with AT&T policies or positions is coincidental and unintentional. Quote: "No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai =========================================================================
kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) (12/30/87)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? Why not start a comp.sys.att.3b2? The same could be said of the 6300 and 6300+ as for the UNIX pc - except there is already an alternate network in place for the discussion of UNIX pc topics, and it probably doesn't make sense to start another new group for a dead product. Check out news.lists, I think, for the info about alternate news hierarchies. The unix-pc.* groups are carried by a lot of machines and are geared specifically for the 3B1/7300. You've probably seen a lot of messages cross-posted. BTW, although many of the UNIX pc owners I know have their machines strictly for personal use, many more are using their machines in or for business or development purposes. Also BTW, I am one 3B1 owner who *is* interested in 3B2 machines, since I also work with one of those. Doesn't this discussion belong in news.groups or something? Kathy Vincent ------> {ihnp4|mtune|codas|ptsfa}!bakerst!kathy ------> {ihnp4|mtune|burl}!wrcola!kathy ------> { favourite AT&T gateway }!wruxe!unix
len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) (12/30/87)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? >The idea being to separate discussions of the 3b1/7300 machines (which >are much more oriented toward personal computer use), from those of the >3b2s, 3b5s, etc. (oriented toward business/development use). > >The amount of 3b1 traffic makes it difficult for those only interested >in the larger machines, and I would guess that a lot of 3b1 owners aren't >really interested in the 3b2+ machines. I have wanted to suggest this for quite some time,and I am sure others feel as Dennis does.. Does anyone want to volunteer to collect votes and move this over to news.groups(?) I have often wished the discussions here were more technical in nature.The amount of installed base of 3B2/3B5 systems out there would seemingly indicate that this is a viable goal.With a little bit of organization,this effort should succeed. I am sure that we can manage to please both unix pc owners and ourselves with this move.. Does anyone have any negative comments regarding this move(?) Let's do it.. -- Len Rose -* Netsys Public Access Network *- The East Coast Machine 301-540-3656 _hunt_ 6 lines 3B2/Unix SV3.1 {ihnp4,decuac,ames}netsys!len
pete@tsc.DEC.COM (Pete Schmitt) (12/31/87)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP>, denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: > > Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? > The traffic on this group doesn't warrent splitting it, plus there are also discussions about 6300s, 6300+s, 6386s. Should they be split off too? No, of course not. If you don't want to read an article about a 3b1 press 'n'. -- \\\!/// From: Pete Schmitt _ _ UUCP: ihnp4!tsc!pete ( Q Q ) It's okay to say the U... word. ---,,,,-------U-------,,,,---
jkg@gatech.edu (Jim Greenlee) (12/31/87)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> you write: >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? >The idea being to separate discussions of the 3b1/7300 machines (which >are much more oriented toward personal computer use), from those of the >3b2s, 3b5s, etc. (oriented toward business/development use). Our site receives several unix-pc.* groups. Perhaps you should check with your local news guru about getting them. >The amount of 3b1 traffic makes it difficult for those only interested >in the larger machines, and I would guess that a lot of 3b1 owners aren't >really interested in the 3b2+ machines. Au contraire (sp?). I support several 7300s and 3b2s in our microprocessor design lab. The 7300s make excellent development stations for doing 68000 related stuff. Our main student workload is carried by the 3b2s. BTW, I also use an AT&T PC 6300 at home so, I get a lot out of this newsgroup :-). Jim Greenlee -- The Shadow...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers}!gatech!jkg Jryy, abj lbh'ir tbar naq qbar vg! Whfg unq gb xrrc svqqyvat jvgu vg hagvy lbh oebxr vg, qvqa'g lbh?!
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (12/31/87)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? No. Reasons below. >The idea being to separate discussions of the 3b1/7300 machines (which >are much more oriented toward personal computer use), from those of the >3b2s, 3b5s, etc. (oriented toward business/development use). But where does that leave the 6300 users (whose talk actually swamps all other discussion in comp.sys.att, in terms of the sheer number of articles)? >The amount of 3b1 traffic makes it difficult for those only interested >in the larger machines, and I would guess that a lot of 3b1 owners aren't >really interested in the 3b2+ machines. Well, this may or may not be true. Personally, I'm interested in all kinds of machines, including a number I will never own (comp.unix.cray comes to mind...). While it might be better if more discussion of 3b1 issues took place in the unix-pc groups, realistically, not everyone gets those. Until everyone does, I fail to see the need to separate 3b1 activity out within the context of the comp.sys groups. This is especially true when you consider the fact that 3b1 traffic is quite small (it probably averages less than 3 messages a day), and is easily filtered out without imposing that much of a handicap on anyone. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
ir1@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (ir1) (12/31/87)
Sender:Neal Beck, Dept. of Pol. Sci. Distribution:comp.sys.att As someone who has a bunch of 6300's but not 3B1's or 2's, I would love to see a group devoted only to 6300. I find now much more of interest in comp.sys.ibm.pc. But we 6300'ers do have special problems. But as of now the few items on the 6300 get lost in either comp.sys.att or comp.sys.ibm.pc. And hitting the k button takes time. Thats one man's opinion. Neal Beck Dept. of Pol. Sci. UCSD e-mail beck@ucsd or beck@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) (01/01/88)
In article <16915@gatech.edu> jkg@gatech.UUCP (Jim Greenlee) writes: >Our site receives several unix-pc.* groups. Perhaps you should check with >your local news guru about getting them. We receive quite enough 3b1 articles already. >Au contraire (sp?). I support several 7300s and 3b2s in our microprocessor >design lab. Read comp.sys.att and comp.sys.att.3b1 then. You'll receive the same stuff you do now. However, those who are not interested in both are given a choice and won't have to wade through the entire mass. -- Denny Page Martha, the Clones are loose again!
denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) (01/01/88)
In article <266@tsc.DEC.COM> pete@tsc.DEC.COM (Pete Schmitt) writes: >The traffic on this group doesn't warrent splitting it, plus there >are also discussions about 6300s, 6300+s, 6386s. Should they be >split off too? No, of course not. If you don't want to read an article >about a 3b1 press 'n'. Unfortunately, it often takes time to determine just what the article is actually about. As to the 6386s, I would include them in the business/development category. I think that this would be obvious. If nothing else, they cost too much to really be considered personal computers. Much of the discussion reguarding the 3b1 revolves around items only of concern to 3b1 users: How do I get rid of the window manager?; How many power supplies have you replaced?; Here is a wonderful new dialer for the builtin modem!; How can I change the control and caps lock key around?... These discussions have no relevance to the other machines whatsoever. -- Denny Page Martha, the Clones are loose again!
emigh@ncsugn.ncsu.edu (Ted H. Emigh) (01/01/88)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? >The idea being to separate discussions of the 3b1/7300 machines (which >are much more oriented toward personal computer use), from those of the >3b2s, 3b5s, etc. (oriented toward business/development use). In article <1870@netsys.UUCP> len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose,NetSys) writes: > I have wanted to suggest this for quite some time,and I am sure others feel > as Dennis does.. Does anyone want to volunteer to collect votes and move this > over to news.groups(?) I have often wished the discussions here were more > technical in nature.The amount of installed base of 3B2/3B5 systems out there > would seemingly indicate that this is a viable goal.With a little bit of > organization,this effort should succeed. > > I am sure that we can manage to please both unix pc owners and ourselves with > this move.. > As Kathy Vincent has mentioned, it doesn't make sense creating a new newsgroup for a dead product. In addition, the 7300 has more in common with the 3B2 than does a 6300. Our site has both 7300s and 3B2s so we have no problem with both in the newsgroup -- and I have noticed that there is less 6300 traffic than there used to be -- maybe it has gone to comp.sys.ibm.pc. I have taken stuff from unix-pc.sources and ported it to the 3B2, and I have used 7300 material in comp.sys.att for the 3B2 -- I see very little reason to make the split. Splitting off the ibm clones on the other hand ... -- Ted H. Emigh, Dept. Genetics and Statistics, NCSU, Raleigh, NC uucp: mcnc!ncsuvx!ncsugn!emigh internet: emigh%ncsugn.ncsu.edu BITNET: NEMIGH@TUCC @ncsuvx.ncsu.edu:emigh@ncsugn.ncsu.edu
richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) (01/02/88)
> I have taken stuff from unix-pc.sources and ported it to the 3B2, and I > have used 7300 material in comp.sys.att for the 3B2 -- I see very little > reason to make the split. Splitting off the ibm clones on the other > hand ... > I've been following this discussion and feeling it didn't really matter either way. But just creating a separate group for the 6300's sounds like a GREAT idea. Happy New Year! Richard Foulk ...{dual,vortex,ihnp4}!islenet!richard Honolulu, Hawaii
norm@ontenv.UUCP (Norman Soley) (01/02/88)
I think it's a good idea. However I would suggest that instead of
doing the naming based on specific product names (3b1, 6300, 3b2...)
That some sort of generic specification of the classifications be
used. Say based on some fundemental architectural difference between
the two major families. I don't know enough about the machines to
suggest possabilities, someone else will have to.
--
Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment
UUCP: utzoo!lsuc!ncrcan!---\ VOICE: +1 416 323 2623
{utzoo,utgpu}!sickkids!ontenv!norm ENVOY: N.SOLEY
{mnetor,utgpu}!ontmoh/allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (01/02/88)
As quoted from <167@mcmi.UUCP> by denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page): +--------------- | Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? | The amount of 3b1 traffic makes it difficult for those only interested | in the larger machines, and I would guess that a lot of 3b1 owners aren't | really interested in the 3b2+ machines. +--------------- The proper way to do it is to somehow get everyone with a 3b1 onto the 3b1 "alternative newsgroup hierarchy": unix-pc.all has been around for awhile now. -- Brandon S. Allbery, Moderator of comp.sources.misc {hoptoad,harvard!necntc,cbosgd,sun!mandrill!hal,uunet!hnsurg3}!ncoast!allbery [This space reserved for future quotes and similar brain twisters.]
hart@cp1.BELL-ATL.COM (Rod Hart) (01/02/88)
In article <3551@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU>, ir1@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (ir1) writes: > As someone who has a bunch of 6300's but not 3B1's or 2's, I would > love to see a group devoted only to 6300. I find now much more of > interest in comp.sys.ibm.pc. But we 6300'ers do have special > problems. But as of now the few items on the 6300 get lost in > either comp.sys.att or comp.sys.ibm.pc. And hitting the k button > takes time. > Why complicate things. Some of us own both 6300's and 7300's. If we aren't careful we will wind up with separate groups for 7300's and 3b1's. A little moderation and self control is in order. -- Signed by: Rod Hart (WA3MEZ) Minicomputer Technical Support District Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. - A Bell Atlantic Company bellcore!cp1!hart - aplcen!cp1!hart - mimsy!cp1!hart - gamma!cp1!hart
jbm@uncle.UUCP (John B. Milton) (01/02/88)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: > >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? > No! there are a lot of people that like to see what is going on with other att computers. A simple suggestion: ALWAYS PUT ONE OF: 6300, 7300 or 3b1, 3b2 *** IN THE TITLE *** Then you can just "N" your way through the one you're not interested in. John -- John Bly Milton IV, jbm@uncle.UUCP, {ihnp4|cbosgd}!n8emr!uncle!jbm home: (614) 294-4823, work: (614) 459-7644, FLAME via email :)
paddock@mybest.UUCP (Steve Paddock) (01/02/88)
In article <170@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: >In article <266@tsc.DEC.COM> pete@tsc.DEC.COM (Pete Schmitt) writes: ...various reasons for splitting or not splitting comp.sys.att... Just one more vote not to fix what's not broken. This all seems to have blown up while my news feed was down, so I hope the voting is still happening. I have managed to define the majority of the 3b1/7300 stuff I don't want to read into one kill command (/3.51/j), and I _like_ the melange of AT&T stuff. I think the dividing of news groups should not take place unless there is not hope of a reconciliation. :-) We'll just end up having to watch 2 sets of kill commands run. :-) The 3B1, like my 6300 Plus, sadly, is a now inexpensive machine on the way off the market. I don't see where we are served by having a news group for each model of hardware when the commonality of being customers of AT&T is much greater. As someone else noted here, code that runs on AT&T machines seems to be the same everywhere. I recall the Usenix article on math library testers; 3B2 and 3B20 (totally different processors) got identical results; the 3B2 just took 2 days. (I love the 2 I work on!) I'd like to hear more 2 and 5 and 15 and 20 stories, but the answer is not to have a dead newsgroup, and running off the 3B1 users won't get the 3B2 users to post! -- Steve Paddock (ut-emx!mybest!paddock) 512-477-9736 Best Printing Co, Austin, Texas 78767
vanam@pttesac.UUCP (Marnix van Ammers) (01/03/88)
In article <2260@cp1.BELL-ATL.COM> hart@cp1.BELL-ATL.COM (Rod Hart) writes: >In article <3551@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU>, ir1@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (ir1) writes: >> As someone who has a bunch of 6300's but not 3B1's or 2's, I would >> love to see a group devoted only to 6300. I find now much more of >> >Why complicate things. Some of us own both 6300's and 7300's. If we >aren't careful we will wind up with separate groups for 7300's and >3b1's. A little moderation and self control is in order. I'm for splitting. I am using a kill file now to filter out "6300", but not everyone puts "6300" in their Subject line, even if the subject has to do only with 6300. I also subscribe to unix-pc.*, but apparently not every has access to that news group. (I think unix-pc.* is meant more for 3B1's that are running netnews, but not all 3B1's or 7300's have the capacity to run netnews) It just seems to me that those who own 6300's *and* 7300's should subscribe to two news groups. Most people only own one or the other. I think that comp.sys.att should perhaps be for the 3B5/3B15/3B20 computers which all seem to have a lot in common. You might also throw in 3B2's and 3B4000's. It seems hard enough to split the newsgroup. I doubt that anyone will try (or succeed) at going so ridiculously far as to split the UNIX-PC into a 7300 group and a 3B1 group. Well that was my 2 cents worth. Marnix ----
denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) (01/05/88)
In article <2861@ncsugn.ncsu.edu> emigh@ncsugn.UUCP (Ted H. Emigh) writes: >As Kathy Vincent has mentioned, it doesn't make sense creating a new >newsgroup for a dead product. The 3b1/7300 being a 'dead' product hasn't stopped the large amount of articles regarding it's unique features and problems. Why do the unix-pc distributions exist anyway? -- Denny Page Martha, the Clones are loose again!
kak@stc-auts.UUCP (Kris Kugel) (01/06/88)
What's this about 14 characters? I looked in our spool/news directory,
and there is a newsgroup there which translates to comp.laser-printers,
which is certainly longer than 14 characters! Are there news systems
which use a different naming convention than a.b.c -->.../spool/news/a/b/c?
Is the fourteen character limit from something besides file name length?
Kris A. Kugel
Storage Tek: ...{ uunet!nbires, hao, ihnp4 }!stcvax!stc-auts!kak
High Country Software: ...{hao, wldrdg, uunet!nbires}!hicntry!kak
"It is better to light one small cannibal than to torch the duchess"davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) (01/08/88)
In article <235@stc-auts.UUCP> kak@stc-auts.UUCP (Kris Kugel) writes: > >What's this about 14 characters? I looked in our spool/news directory, >and there is a newsgroup there which translates to comp.laser-printers, >which is certainly longer than 14 characters! Are there news systems >which use a different naming convention than a.b.c -->.../spool/news/a/b/c? comp.laser-printers -> comp/laser.printers ....:...10....:...20 comp 4 laser.printers 14 Sorry, that's not correct, Kris. laser.printers is just exactly 14 characters long. Perhaps if you took off your shoes ;-> -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
rich@oxtrap.UUCP (K. Richard Magill) (01/09/88)
In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes: >Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1? Hear, Here! But I think the problem has been solved by unix-pc.general. Why don't people use it? (You don't get it? ok. Why not?). rich.