bbh@mtek.com (Bud Hovell @ Mtek) (01/28/91)
Any chance that the folks in the 'u3b' groups might like to come over and play under the new schema? Particularly for those such as we who have older 3B2 machines, the logic for doing so may be as compelling as that which the vast majority of us supported in voting the switchover from unix-pc.* to comp.*.3b1. It appears the 'u3b' groups suffer equally from lack of general distribution. And there are alot more 3B2 machines of various shades than 3B1s, so readership should not be an issue, it would seem. I know the topic of a more-general reorganization arose during the debate about comp.sys.3b1 (and absolutely agree that it would have been *most* undesireable to muddy the waters at that time), but... Is the time now at hand to discuss further reorganization logic(s)? Yeah, I know: "No slack!" But success begets success - so maybe we should carry through while we're on a roll. :-) :-) -- ____________ bud@mtek.com "The 'government' is defined as the people who have the guns." - unattrib.
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (01/28/91)
In article <1991Jan28.012133.13672@mtek.com> bbh@mtek.com (Bud Hovell @ Mtek) writes: >Any chance that the folks in the 'u3b' groups might like to come over >and play under the new schema? I wonder if anyone is exclusively in u3b? I get both sys.att and u3b.* and I never see anything over there that wasn't cross posted here. I'd be curious to know if there is anyone who gets u3b that doesn't get sys.att. [ ... ] >I know the topic of a more-general reorganization arose during the debate >about comp.sys.3b1 (and absolutely agree that it would have been *most* >undesireable to muddy the waters at that time), but... I did muddy the waters and mood seemed to be to leave everything alone until the 3B1 issues were settled. I have 63xx equipment here and a 3B2, so it might be that the new 3B1 vector might leave this group containing what I'm most interested in. There doesn't seem (to me) to be enough 3B2 volume to dedicate a separate group. Don't get me wrong, I read every line of every article about 3B2s, I just wonder if we generate enough volume to justify splitting it off. If the 3B1 folk move 100% to their new groups, the total volume in sys.att is going to drop dramatically. >Is the time now at hand to discuss further reorganization logic(s)? > >Yeah, I know: "No slack!" But success begets success - so maybe we >should carry through while we're on a roll. :-) :-) >-- >____________ >bud@mtek.com >"The 'government' is defined as the people who have the guns." - unattrib. I'm not trying to muddy things again, but if we're going to split sys.att further, I suggest that we subdivide to small medium and large. There's precious little here about the new Pyramid stuff, but there aren't many of them out there yet. For the readers here and downstream I know that we'd read small and medium (63xx, 3B2); probably not large (70xx). I'm not convinced that sys.att is broken so I wonder if we need to fix it. The 3B1 folks felt that their part was broken, so they fixed it. That's OK by me, I voted for it to save some strokes on the `n' and `k' buttons but I never felt that their stuff was clutter. How about if we wait until 3B1.* gets up to speed and see if we still want to further subdivide? -- Bill Kennedy usenet {att,cs.utexas.edu,pyramid!daver}!ssbn.wlk.com!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or attmail!ssbn!bill
aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) (01/28/91)
In <1991Jan28.012133.13672@mtek.com> bbh@mtek.com (Bud Hovell @ Mtek) writes: >Any chance that the folks in the 'u3b' groups might like to come over >and play under the new schema? >Particularly for those such as we who have older 3B2 machines, the logic for >doing so may be as compelling as that which the vast majority of us >supported in voting the switchover from unix-pc.* to comp.*.3b1. It appears >the 'u3b' groups suffer equally from lack of general distribution. And there >are alot more 3B2 machines of various shades than 3B1s, so readership >should not be an issue, it would seem. It seems that it would make more sense from the beginning to have a comp.sys.3b and comp.sources.3b since neither the unix-pc nor the u3b hierarchies are exactly high volume, then in the future if it was warranted subgroups comp.*.3b.1, comp.*.3b.2 could have been created. What do I know though? aem sysadmins for logical usenet naming (SLUN) -- aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ....................................................... Contaminate your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. - Chief Seattle
rdc30med@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (LCDR Michael E. Dobson) (01/29/91)
From what I've seen of the traffic in comp.sys.att, it has been either 3b1 or 3b2 traffic all along. Now that the unix-pc traffic will (largely) be going into the 3b1 groups, that would seem to leave 3b2 traffic the sole occupant of comp.sys.att. Perhaps a rename to comp.sys.3b2 and the addition of comp.sources.3b2 is in order. How much 3b2 specific source code is actually out there? With the exception of ANSI C code and heavily BSDish code, I've had only minor problems with code from the existing source groups that claims to be usable on SysV machines so we may not need a 3b2 specifc source group. -- Mike Dobson, Sys Admin for | Internet: rdc30med@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil | UUCP: ...uunet!mimsy!nmrdc1!rdc30med AT&T 3B2/600G Sys V R 3.2.2 | BITNET: dobson@usuhsb or nrd0mxd@vmnmdsc WIN/TCP for 3B2 | MCI-Mail: 377-2719 or 0003772719@mcimail.com
gak@gakbox.Corp.Sun.COM (Richard Stueven) (01/29/91)
In article <1991Jan28.152827.8986@mthvax.cs.miami.edu>, aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) writes: >It seems that it would make more sense from the beginning to have a >comp.sys.3b and comp.sources.3b [...] The 3B1 and the 3B2 are wildly different machines. In fact, no 3B model resembles any other 3B model, except for the numerous variations of the 3B2, and the 3B5/3B15 models. (Are they still making any of these anymore? I've been out of it for a while...) comp.sys.att lumps these models together nicely, as far as we 3b1-ites are concerned. have fun gak ** Richard Stueven attmail!gak gak@sun.com ** ** Monday is a work day, Tuesday's much the same ** ** Wednesday comes and goes away, Thursday's back again - Madness ** ** Relax, don't worry, have a homebrew! **
pjh@mccc.edu (Pete Holsberg) (01/29/91)
In article <1991Jan28.012133.13672@mtek.com> bbh@mtek.com (Bud Hovell @ Mtek) writes:
=Any chance that the folks in the 'u3b' groups might like to come over
=and play under the new schema?
=
=Particularly for those such as we who have older 3B2 machines, the logic for
=doing so may be as compelling as that which the vast majority of us
=supported in voting the switchover from unix-pc.* to comp.*.3b1. It appears
=the 'u3b' groups suffer equally from lack of general distribution. And there
=are alot more 3B2 machines of various shades than 3B1s, so readership
=should not be an issue, it would seem.
I wouldn't mind seeing comp.sys.3b2 and comp.sources.3b2.
Pete
--
Prof. Peter J. Holsberg Mercer County Community College
Voice: 609-586-4800 Engineering Technology, Computers and Math
UUCP:...!princeton!mccc!pjh 1200 Old Trenton Road, Trenton, NJ 08690
Internet: pjh@mccc.edu Trenton Computer Festival -- 4/20-21/91paul@unhtel.uucp (Paul S. Sawyer) (01/29/91)
In article <1991Jan29.010521.1037@mccc.edu> pjh@mccc.EDU (Pete Holsberg) writes: > >I wouldn't mind seeing comp.sys.3b2 and comp.sources.3b2. > That might leave those of us running orphaned dinosaurs like my 3B15 (and 3B5, 3B20, etc.) without a "good" group. They are most related to the 3B2 of any, and being rare and obsolete, cooperative support will be even more important in the future.... -- Paul S. Sawyer {uunet,attmail}!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.uucp UNH CIS - - Telecommunications and Network Services paul@unhtel.unh.edu Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: +1 603 862 3262 FAX: +1 603 862 2030
jim@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Mercer) (01/30/91)
In article <1991Jan28.152827.8986@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu writes: >It seems that it would make more sense from the beginning to have a >comp.sys.3b and comp.sources.3b since neither the unix-pc nor the u3b >hierarchies are exactly high volume, then in the future if it was >warranted subgroups comp.*.3b.1, comp.*.3b.2 could have been created. comp.sys.3b1 got away with using a digit in the first position of a name. i think comp.sys.3b.1 would cause real havoc as some programs may get confused as to whether /usr/spool/news/comp/sys/3b/1 is an article or a group. i was amazed no-one brought this up during the discussions for c.s.3b1 (not that i care, our system seems to be doing fine) -- [ Jim Mercer jim@lsuc.On.Ca || ...!uunet!attcan!lsuc!jim +1 416 947-5258 ] [ Educational Systems Manager - Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto, CANADA ] [ Standards are great. They give non-conformists something to not conform to. ] [ The opinions expressed here may or may not be those of my employer ]
dave@das13.snide.com (Dave Snyder) (01/30/91)
In article <1991Jan29.010521.1037@mccc.edu>, pjh@mccc.edu (Pete Holsberg) writes: > I wouldn't mind seeing comp.sys.3b2 and comp.sources.3b2. > The term "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" comes to mind right now. I could very probably be coarsed into voting for the above two groups. DAS -- David A. Snyder @ Snide Inc. - Folcroft, PA UUCP: ..!uunet!trac2000!das13!dave INTERNET: dave@das13.snide.com
dts@quad.sialis.com (David Sandberg) (01/31/91)
In article <1991Jan29.125635.8145@unhtel.uucp> paul@unhtel.uucp (Paul S. Sawyer) writes: >In article <1991Jan29.010521.1037@mccc.edu> pjh@mccc.EDU (Pete Holsberg) writes: >>I wouldn't mind seeing comp.sys.3b2 and comp.sources.3b2. > >That might leave those of us running orphaned dinosaurs like my 3B15 (and >3B5, 3B20, etc.) without a "good" group. Hmm. Isn't it interesting that the first sustained topic to appear in comp.sys.3b1 is about every AT&T machine _but_ the 3b1? Hmm... <confused look> -- \\ David Sandberg \ ,=, ,=, \\ // dts@quad.sialis.com / | |uadric `=,ystems // \\ uunet!umn-cs!sialis!quad!dts \ `=\ `=' \\
woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) (01/31/91)
[ This 'na' distribution stuff has got to stop! ] In article <1991Jan28.180448.6953@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil> rdc30med@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (LCDR Michael E. Dobson) writes: > From what I've seen of the traffic in comp.sys.att, it has been either 3b1 or > 3b2 traffic all along. Now that the unix-pc traffic will (largely) be going > into the 3b1 groups, that would seem to leave 3b2 traffic the sole occupant > of comp.sys.att. Ah, as a 3b2 fan, I'll just be the devil's advocate for a second.... What about all the 6386 stuff? > Perhaps a rename to comp.sys.3b2 and the addition of > comp.sources.3b2 is in order. How much 3b2 specific source code is actually > out there? Absolutely NONE, since I've never seen any device drivers posted. AT&T System V Release x.x is what the 3b2's run, and that's as generic as it gets, since the 3b2 was the porting base. > With the exception of ANSI C code and heavily BSDish code, I've had > only minor problems with code from the existing source groups that claims to be > usable on SysV machines so we may not need a 3b2 specifc source group. Which reminds me.... How many 3b1 specific sources are there? Sure some graphics stuff, not all of which is specific. Maybe some other device specific stuff. Otherwise, anything for 3b1's is basically SysVr2.x compatible (with the exception of some Starlan/TLI stuff which seems also to be compatible with SysVr3.0). Please, anyone porting things to either 3b platform, use generic SysV features as #ifdef's, etc, not u3bX identifiers. -- Greg A. Woods woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP ECI and UniForum Canada +1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] VE3TCP Toronto, Ontario CANADA Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL
bbh@mtek.com (Bud Hovell @ Mtek) (02/01/91)
In article <653@quad.sialis.com> dts@quad.sialis.com (David Sandberg) writes: <In article <1991Jan29.125635.8145@unhtel.uucp> paul@unhtel.uucp (Paul S. Sawyer) writes: <Hmm. Isn't it interesting that the first sustained topic to appear in <comp.sys.3b1 is about every AT&T machine _but_ the 3b1? < <Hmm... <confused look> Well, the articles, you will notice, are being cross-posted. The original article that launched this discussion was *specifically* directed to the topic of whether it would make any sense to move u3b.* to comp.*.3b2. Since the u3b.* groups (I am confident) suffer at least the same limits to distribution as have the unix-pc.* groups, I thought a more-general posting would be appropriate as a means of bringing up the subject amongst those readers most-likely to have an interest. This may have been an error in judgement on my part. Perhaps we should *not* cross-post this discussion to comp.sys.3b1, since those persons interested will most-probably be reading comp.sys.att anyway, even if they cannot get u3b.* But that was the real point, wasn't it? :-) -- ____________ bud@mtek.com "When all else fails, lower standards." - bumper sticker
dts@quad.sialis.com (David Sandberg) (02/01/91)
In article <1991Jan31.195359.4344@mtek.com> bbh@mtek.com (Bud Hovell @ Mtek) writes: :In article <653@quad.sialis.com> dts@quad.sialis.com (David Sandberg) writes: :<Hmm. Isn't it interesting that the first sustained topic to appear in :<comp.sys.3b1 is about every AT&T machine _but_ the 3b1? : :Well, the articles, you will notice, are being cross-posted. The original :article that launched this discussion was *specifically* directed to the :topic of whether it would make any sense to move u3b.* to comp.*.3b2. I knew the articles were crossposted. My comment was only half-serious. However, I felt the use of a smiley would negate the subtle point I did want to make in the midst of the irony, so I left it out. :Perhaps we should *not* cross-post this discussion to comp.sys.3b1, since :those persons interested will most-probably be reading comp.sys.att anyway, :even if they cannot get u3b.* Now this I can agree with wholeheartedly. -- \\ David Sandberg \ ,=, ,=, \\ // dts@quad.sialis.com / | |uadric `=,ystems // \\ uunet!umn-cs!sialis!quad!dts \ `=\ `=' \\
pjh@mccc.edu (Pete Holsberg) (02/02/91)
In article <1991Jan31.020450.15280@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes:
=Ah, as a 3b2 fan, I'll just be the devil's advocate for a second....
=
= What about all the 6386 stuff?
What 6386 stuff? I've seen very little. I wish there were more!
Pete
--
Prof. Peter J. Holsberg Mercer County Community College
Voice: 609-586-4800 Engineering Technology, Computers and Math
UUCP:...!princeton!mccc!pjh 1200 Old Trenton Road, Trenton, NJ 08690
Internet: pjh@mccc.edu Trenton Computer Festival -- 4/20-21/91mtd@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mario T DeFazio) (05/06/91)
In article <1991Jan28.012133.13672@mtek.com>, bbh@mtek.com (Bud Hovell @ Mtek) writes: > Any chance that the folks in the 'u3b' groups might like to come over > and play under the new schema? I'm all for it. Mario T DeFazio AT&T EasyLink Services, Lincroft, New Jersey AT&T Mail: !mdefazio Internet: mdefazio@attmail.com Voice: (908)576-2590 mtd@pegasus.att.com
len@netsys.NETSYS.COM (Len Rose) (05/07/91)
Creating comp.sys.3b2 is fine as long as there enough traffic. We tried to create it before and we weren't able to generate enough interest. Look at the statistics for the u3b subnet.. Creating comp.sources.3b2 is not a good idea. The software is generic (how much more generic can AT&T System V get?) , and there really isn't anything 3B2 specific to post (that can't be sent to alt.sources, or even comp.sources.misc ... This rampant group creation blitz since the cabal bit the dust has had some really bad side effects. The info-3b2 mailing list is still intact, albeit out of date. If anyone still wants to be added, it can be done. I will be passing off the list of names to Steve Friedl sometime in the summer, before I go to club fed. Let's just see how a vote progresses... Just an opinion (I shouldn't even be posting,since I am officially gagged)
paul@unhtel.unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer) (05/08/91)
In article <20590@netsys.NETSYS.COM> len@netsys.NETSYS.COM (Len Rose) writes: > > Creating comp.sys.3b2 is fine as long as there enough traffic. We tried to > create it before and we weren't able to generate enough interest. Look > at the statistics for the u3b subnet.. Just don't forget those of us who run "dinosaurs" like the 3B5, 3B15, 3B4000, 3B20S (3B20D?). As ATT has already orphaned them, and is now busy courting its newly adopted (kidnapped?) family, net support is more important than ever! (comp.sys.3b2-and-up? naah... B-) > Just an opinion (I shouldn't even be posting,since I am officially gagged) Glad to hear from you. I wish you the best, under the circumstances. -- Paul S. Sawyer {uunet,attmail}!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.unh.edu UNH CIS - - Telecommunications and Network Services VOX: +1 603 862 3262 Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 FAX: +1 603 862 2030