dennis@rlgvax.UUCP (Dennis Bednar) (03/21/86)
How about a new group "net.micro.xenix" for Xenix 286/System 5 for
the PC/AT? The problem with net.micro.pc, is that its full of
stuff for pc/mdos machines.
--
-Dennis Bednar
{decvax,ihnp4,harpo,allegra}!seismo!rlgvax!dennis UUCPbaron@transys.UUCP (Joe Portman) (03/24/86)
> > How about a new group "net.micro.xenix" for Xenix 286/System 5 for > the PC/AT? The problem with net.micro.pc, is that its full of > stuff for pc/mdos machines. > -- > -Dennis Bednar > {decvax,ihnp4,harpo,allegra}!seismo!rlgvax!dennis UUCP I am all for it. -- **************************************************** * These are my own opinions, not those of * * my employer (self), or any one * * connected with the company (mine) * **************************************************** Joe Portman (SA) USPS: TransSystems Incorporated AT&T: 1-206-453-5560 1280 116th Avenue NE Bellevue WA 98009 /-- uw-beaver!\ /-- camco! \ ... ihnp4! --< >-tikal!< >-- transys!root \-- microsoft!/ \-- teldata!/
west@gargoyle.UUCP (Steve Westfall) (03/25/86)
In article <950@rlgvax.UUCP> dennis@rlgvax.UUCP (Dennis Bednar) writes: > >How about a new group "net.micro.xenix" for Xenix 286/System 5 for >the PC/AT? The problem with net.micro.pc, is that its full of >stuff for pc/mdos machines. It seems to me that Xenix is adequately covered in the several groups where Unix is discussed (net.unix, net.unix.wizards, etc.). (And even if there were to be a net.micro.xenix, why limit it to Xenix on the PC/AT? More people run Xenix on Tandy and Altos machines than on AT's!) Steve Westfall uucp: ihnp4!gargoyle!west Univ. of Chicago Graduate School of Business
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/27/86)
In article <176@transys.UUCP>, baron@transys.UUCP (Joe Portman) writes: > > > > How about a new group "net.micro.xenix" for Xenix 286/System 5 for > > the PC/AT? The problem with net.micro.pc, is that its full of > > stuff for pc/mdos machines. > > -- > > -Dennis Bednar > > {decvax,ihnp4,harpo,allegra}!seismo!rlgvax!dennis UUCP > > I am all for it. I am all for it as well. But why limit the group to discussions of XENIX implemented on Intentionally Bad Machines? I run XENIX on a Tandy 6000, and there are at least 100000 other sout there doing the same thing. Remember, *MOST* computers in the world are *NOT* IBMs, contrary to the propaganda teh Inherently Bogus Machine company puts out. -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
gemini@homxb.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (03/27/86)
west@gargoyle.UUCP (Steve Westfall) writes: > In article <950@rlgvax.UUCP> dennis@rlgvax.UUCP (Dennis Bednar) writes: > > > >How about a new group "net.micro.xenix" for Xenix 286/System 5 for > >the PC/AT? The problem with net.micro.pc, is that its full of > >stuff for pc/mdos machines. > > It seems to me that Xenix is adequately covered in the several > groups where Unix is discussed (net.unix, net.unix.wizards, etc.). > (And even if there were to be a net.micro.xenix, why limit it to > Xenix on the PC/AT? More people run Xenix on Tandy and Altos > machines than on AT's!) I think that the UNIX world has become divided into two camps, with different interests, those that run UNIX on multi-user machines, and those that run UNIX on single-user or personal machines. (Where the definition of "single-user" is modified to include, say, 1-4 user machines). I also think that many MS-DOS users who might be tempted to try UNIX, are put off by the level of discussion in net.unix and net.unix-wizards. 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. I am personally opposed to moderated groups, as I rarely have the time to dig thru the accumulations, although I am able to find time to read the news a few articles at a time, between compiles. However, if the creation of this group hinges upon it being a moderated group (mod.micro.unix), I would be willing to moderate it. Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc. (201) 922-1134 ..!ihnp4!houxm!castor!{rer,pcrat!rer} <--Replies to here, not to homxb!!!
chad@anasazi.UUCP (Chad R. Larson) (03/27/86)
In article <176@transys.UUCP> baron@transys.UUCP (Joe Portman) writes: >> >> How about a new group "net.micro.xenix" for Xenix 286/System 5 for >> the PC/AT? The problem with net.micro.pc, is that its full of >> stuff for pc/mdos machines. I would agree, but suggest we include Venix system 5 and any other system 5 ports. In other words, a general System V on desktop computers group. Perhaps called net.micro.unix or something. -crl -- "It's not the years, it's the mileage!" -Indiana Jones _____________________________________________________________________ UUCP: {mot!terak}!anasazi!chad Voice: Hey, Chad! Ma Bell: (602) 870-3330 ICBM: N33deg,33min Surface: International Anasazi, Inc. W112deg,03min 7500 North Dreamy Draw Drive Suit 120 Phoenix, AZ 85020
WANCHO@SIMTEL20.arpa (03/29/86)
For those of you on the DDN side, also consider the currently low
volume INFO-XENIX310@SIMTEL20 mailing list.
From the List of List entry:
INFO-XENIX310@SIMTEL20.ARPA
Mailing list devoted to discussing the problems, capabilities,
incompatibilities, successes, failures, or whatever, with Xenix on the Intel
310s. The list is primarily aimed at systems administrators and others who
are responsible for making these machines useful in the workplace.
Particular interests are successful ports of existing software to the 310
and procedures to simplify systems administration.
Mail archives are stored on SIMTEL20 in file:
<ARCHIVES.XENIX310>XENIX310-ARCHIV.TXT
They are available via ANONYMOUS FTP from SIMTEL20 for those with TCP/IP
access to the Internet.
All requests to be added to or deleted from this list, problems, questions,
etc., should be sent to INFO-XENIX310-REQUEST@SIMTEL20.ARPA.
Coordinator: John Mitchener <JMITCHENER@SIMTEL20.ARPA>mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/30/86)
In article <696@anasazi.UUCP>, chad@anasazi.UUCP (Chad R. Larson) writes: > In article <176@transys.UUCP> baron@transys.UUCP (Joe Portman) writes: > >> > >> How about a new group "net.micro.xenix" for Xenix 286/System 5 for > >> the PC/AT? The problem with net.micro.pc, is that its full of > >> stuff for pc/mdos machines. > > I would agree, but suggest we include Venix system 5 and any other > system 5 ports. In other words, a general System V on desktop computers > group. Perhaps called net.micro.unix or something. Hold the phone! Not everyone running desktop UNIX-clone systems is running Sys V! Let's keep this general, folks! There are over 100,000 Tandy systems running V7 or SYS III XENIX. We deserve to participate too! -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
mike@rlgvax.UUCP (Mike Shaffer) (03/31/86)
> west@gargoyle.UUCP (Steve Westfall) writes: > > In article <950@rlgvax.UUCP> dennis@rlgvax.UUCP (Dennis Bednar) writes: > > > > > >How about a new group "net.micro.xenix" for Xenix 286/System 5 for > > >the PC/AT? The problem with net.micro.pc, is that its full of > > >stuff for pc/mdos machines. > > > > It seems to me that Xenix is adequately covered in the several > > groups where Unix is discussed (net.unix, net.unix.wizards, etc.). > > (And even if there were to be a net.micro.xenix, why limit it to > > Xenix on the PC/AT? More people run Xenix on Tandy and Altos > > machines than on AT's!) > > I think that the UNIX world has become divided into two camps, with > different interests, those that run UNIX on multi-user machines, and > those that run UNIX on single-user or personal machines. (Where the > definition of "single-user" is modified to include, say, 1-4 user machines). > > I also think that many MS-DOS users who might be tempted to try UNIX, > are put off by the level of discussion in net.unix and net.unix-wizards. > > 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. > > I am personally opposed to moderated groups, as I rarely have the time > to dig thru the accumulations, although I am able to find time to read > the news a few articles at a time, between compiles. However, > if the creation of this group hinges upon it being a moderated group > (mod.micro.unix), I would be willing to moderate it. > Now here is a man with a head on his shoulders. I agree that a net.micro.unix would make sense as it would attract a broader range of discussions. Who knows maybe someone like me will find an alternative to Xenix (hope springs eternal). Mike Shaffer, CCI Reston Va. Not sure how you get here but: ..rlgvax!mike Not even sure how I got here.
chad@anasazi.UUCP (Chad R. Larson) (03/31/86)
In article <1349@homxb.UUCP> 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 would also like to see such a group (as per my previous posting). Our company currently has 10 machines in that catagory, and the list is growing. -crl -- "It's not the years, it's the mileage!" -Indiana Jones _____________________________________________________________________ UUCP: {mot!terak}!anasazi!chad Voice: Hey, Chad! Ma Bell: (602) 870-3330 ICBM: N33deg,33min Surface: International Anasazi, Inc. W112deg,03min 7500 North Dreamy Draw Drive Suit 120 Phoenix, AZ 85020
grr@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (George Robbins) (04/02/86)
> Hold the phone! Not everyone running desktop UNIX-clone systems is running >Sys V! Let's keep this general, folks! There are over 100,000 Tandy systems >running V7 or SYS III XENIX. We deserve to participate too! > >tom keller >{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 Look guys, if you can settle for mod.os.xenix, and can find someone willing to serve as a moderator (or echoer) you should be able to get the group created with a minimum amount of fuss. There is also an arpanet xenix group that can be gatewayed in, although it's alledgedly pretty low volume. I know there are plenty of arguments against/for moderated groups, but if you really want some private turf in the near term, go with the flow. The OS/9 fanatics did manage to get a mod.os.os9 group created, although there hasn't been much traffic on it. Also, I would suggest keeping to a .xenix group. If enough people screech for a venix group, then let that be created. I can't see any real need to split a xenix group into V7/Sys III/Sys V lines unless the volume and confusion would justify such action. Me? My little home computer runs a funny unix port called Zeus... -- George Robbins - now working with, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|caip}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
jmturn@lmi-angel.UUCP (James Turner) (04/03/86)
In article <> gemini@homxb.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes: >west@gargoyle.UUCP (Steve Westfall) writes: >> In article <950@rlgvax.UUCP> dennis@rlgvax.UUCP (Dennis Bednar) writes: >> > >> >How about a new group "net.micro.xenix" for Xenix 286/System 5 for >> >the PC/AT? The problem with net.micro.pc, is that its full of >> >stuff for pc/mdos machines. >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. There are some of us out there who are still running Xenix 2.3 (V7), and have no interest in updating to S3 or S5. All the discussion about this new list seems to center on the USG look-alike versions of *nix, I'd just like to put in a word for the old guard. -- James Helping Computers With Speech Impediments LISP Machine, Inc. {harvard|cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!jmturn
mab@mtx5c.UUCP (Michael Brochstein) (04/08/86)
> In article <1349@homxb.UUCP> 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 would also like to see such a group (as per my previous posting). > Our company currently has 10 machines in that catagory, and the list > is growing. > -crl > -- > "It's not the years, it's the mileage!" > -Indiana Jones > _____________________________________________________________________ > UUCP: {mot!terak}!anasazi!chad Voice: Hey, Chad! > Ma Bell: (602) 870-3330 ICBM: N33deg,33min > Surface: International Anasazi, Inc. W112deg,03min > 7500 North Dreamy Draw Drive > Suit 120 > Phoenix, AZ 85020 I second the motion, Unix/Xenix support is hard to get from many vendors. The knowledge of the net is better than that of many small vendors. Lets have net.micro.unix for all versions of UNIX. The above is my opinion and my employer beleives in free speech,... -- Michael Brochstein AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ ihnp4!mtx5d!mtx5c!mab (201) 957-1764
west@gargoyle.UUCP (Steve Westfall) (04/10/86)
In article <12@lmi-angel.UUCP> jmturn@lmi-angel.UUCP (James Turner) writes: >In article <> gemini@homxb.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes: >>west@gargoyle.UUCP (Steve Westfall) writes: >>> In article <950@rlgvax.UUCP> dennis@rlgvax.UUCP (Dennis Bednar) writes: >>> > >>> >How about a new group "net.micro.xenix" for Xenix 286/System 5 for >>> >the PC/AT? The problem with net.micro.pc, is that its full of >>> >stuff for pc/mdos machines. >>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. > >James > >Helping Computers With Speech Impediments >LISP Machine, Inc. > >{harvard|cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!jmturn I just want to point out that, while I did post something a while back regarding the proposed net.micro.xenix, I did not write A SINGLE WORD from the verbage which James Turner quotes above. Please be a little more careful about using those "in article xxx so-and-so writes" lines that are automatically supplied by postnews! Steve Westfall uucp: ihnp4!gargoyle!west Univ. of Chicago Graduate School of Business
ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (Lord Kahless @ Imperial Propoganda) (04/30/86)
> > I second the motion, Unix/Xenix support is hard to get from many > vendors. The knowledge of the net is better than that of many small vendors. > Lets have net.micro.unix for all versions of UNIX. > > ihnp4!mtx5d!mtx5c!mab (201) 957-1764 I third the motion. I've done a lot of work on micros, systems that aren't my usenet feed. How many times I've fought bringing up some feature on a machine that the company support people can't answer me on. Some of the questions have been too basic and too related to the quirky micro companies to pester net.unix-wizards about, and surely are too specific for net.unix. The systems aren't by any company that seems to have their own support group on the net, so I'm stuck, floundering on my own. {dual,lll-crg,ucbvax}!ucdavis!vega!ccrdave
Unknown@hplabs.UUCP (04/30/86)
This message is empty.