georgeb@fai.UUCP (George Bosworth) (03/01/91)
Is there any newsgroup for OSF operating system news, such as comp.os.osf? If not, is there interest in starting one? George George H. Bosworth georgeb@fai.com or Fujitsu America B-2-7 uunet!fai.com!georgeb 3055 Orchard Drive San Jose CA 95134 1-408/432-1300 x5033
bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) (03/02/91)
In article <193@idt.UUCP> vladan@idt.UUCP (Vladan Djakovic) writes: >In article <2999@fai.UUCP>, georgeb@fai.UUCP (George Bosworth) writes: >> Is there any newsgroup for OSF operating system news, such >> as comp.os.osf? >> >> If not, is there interest in starting one? >> >comp.os.osf is sound idea. If others are interested the formal procedure should >be started. I agree in principle, but the name should be comp.unix.osf. OSF/1 is supposedly a UNIX system containing code from various sources, including AT&T, UCB, CMU, MIT, and the OSF. This is quite a different case from the recently proposed Coherent group because Coherent is a complete rewrite, i.e. a UNIX "workalike" rather than a version of UNIX. Actually, now that I think about it, comp.os.mach is probably misnamed, too. ;-) >-- > ############################################################################ > # Vladan Djakovic, IDT (Integrated Device Technology), Santa Clara, CA # > # ... uunet!idt!vladan (All opinions are mine, etc., etc. ...) # > ############################################################################ Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG Systems Programming Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois 60115 ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett@cs.niu.edu * * BITNET: A01SJB1@NIU * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "WAR is the HEALTH of the STATE" --Albert Jay Nock (I think:-) * **********************************************************************
fkittred@bbn.com (Fletcher Kittredge) (03/02/91)
In article <193@idt.UUCP> vladan@idt.UUCP (Vladan Djakovic) writes: >In article <2999@fai.UUCP>, georgeb@fai.UUCP (George Bosworth) writes: >> Is there any newsgroup for OSF operating system news, such >> as comp.os.osf? >> >comp.os.osf is sound idea. If others are interested the formal procedure should >be started. comp.os.osf is a bad idea at this point. Newsgroups should be started when traffic in a subject reaches the point in current groups that it interferes with the operations of those groups. Today, there is little traffic in comp.os.mach, so adding a OSF/1 specific newsgroup is a mistake. Later, if traffic justifies it, we should start the group. regards, fletcher Fletcher Kittredge Platforms and Tools Group, BBN Software Products 10 Fawcett Street, Cambridge, MA. 02138 617-873-3465 / fkittred@bbn.com / fkittred@das.harvard.edu
lark@greylock.osf.org (Lar Kaufman) (03/03/91)
In article <1991Mar1.232013.31954@mp.cs.niu.edu>, bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) writes: > In article <193@idt.UUCP> vladan@idt.UUCP (Vladan Djakovic) writes: > >In article <2999@fai.UUCP>, georgeb@fai.UUCP (George Bosworth) writes: > >> Is there any newsgroup for OSF operating system news, such > >> as comp.os.osf? > >> > >> If not, is there interest in starting one? > >> > >comp.os.osf is sound idea. If others are interested the formal procedure should > >be started. > > I agree in principle, but the name should be comp.unix.osf. OSF/1 > is supposedly a UNIX system containing code from various sources, > including AT&T, UCB, CMU, MIT, and the OSF. This is quite a different > case from the recently proposed Coherent group because Coherent is a > complete rewrite, i.e. a UNIX "workalike" rather than a version of UNIX. You are correct that the name should be comp.unix.osf - for now. I understand that the next iteration of OSF (OSF/2 ?) is to have no licensed UNIX code. I have no objection to comp.os.osf as a name, however. After all, the first major anamoly in the hierarchy is that comp.unix* is not comp.os.unix* We really need Usenet to seek permission from Unix Systems Laboratories to put non-licensed Unix-lookalikes into comp.unix.* - and I bet USL won't permit it. Perhaps we shouldn't even use the word "unix" in our hierarchical structure at all. Maybe comp.os.u.bsd and comp.os.u.svr would be better starting points... Would that mean that comp.os.coherent would have to be comp.os.u.v7.coherent? This is a thorny problem and it will remain so, especially as OSes try to borrow concepts and features from other OSes. Where, for example, do you talk about Posix, when VMS becomes Posix-compliant? My suggested (short-term) solution: - form comp.unix.osf1 now - form comp.os.osf2 later. Note that I've set follow-ups to news.groups. -lar Lar Kaufman I would feel more optimistic about a bright future (voice) 512-794-9070 for man if he spent less time proving that he can (fax) 512-794-0623 outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness lark@tivoli.com and respecting her seniority. - E.B. White