plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) (08/24/88)
In article <78@volition.dec.com> vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes: >Apparently, we have a slight lag in news propagation. It is now a > >John Plocher is either not reading my articles, or he is deliberately I just got a new batch in here at uport and there were quite a few from you; I wasn't ignoring them - I didn't know of them! I like your ideas - don't get me wrong; I just don't want something "steamrollered" thru the process. Back when .microport started up the backbone wasn't ready to address the .bsd/.sys5 split and ALL that it would mean: Most BSD systems can take advantage of the BRL System5 emulation package; where does this leave them? On the Gould I used at the UW you could have a BSD machine (just type 'bsd') or a S5 one (just type 'sysv'). Would there be a whole newsgroup split demanded because of this? In order to do it "right" there would need to be a comp.bugs.sys5, comp.bugs.bsd, comp.bugs.aux, comp.unix.bsd.dec, comp.unix.sys5.dec ... Would this mean a newsgroup explosion along the lines of c.u.sys5.dec c.u.sys5.3b2 ... or would we be swamped with version differences such as c.u.sys5.release1 c.u.sys5.release2 c.u.sys5.release3 ... They prefered to sidestep the issue and not use the sys5 nomen at all for the .microport group. This is why I have been so vocal about this all; I've been thru the backbone ringer once - these are the questions that will need to be addressed by any .sys5 newsgroup proposal. Nuff of history. Since I need to state a position, here goes: comp.unix.i286 (for V/AT and similars) comp.unix.i386 (for 386/ix and derivatives) comp.unix.xenix (for Xenix on all manner of CPUs) These are proposed with the strong assumption that crossposting between any of these groups is generally frowned upon - this keeps flame wars away) If anyone can get BSD up on a 286 I'm sure the people using c.u.286 would be overjoyed to hear about it! Same for the c.u.386 group. Since the volume of these groups is so very low (10 articles/day) I don't see any reason to subdivide things even more - the .sys5 qualifier in my opinion is not needed and its inclusion may be more pain than it is worth. comp.unix.microport (wait for volume to fall off (say 2 months) alias it to .unix.386 for another 2, then delete it.) It will be sad to see this happen, but it's been a good group. Hope we aren't shooting ourselves in the foot, though... -John Plocher