chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) (05/25/90)
In article <188@shiloh.UUCP> kmoore@shiloh.UUCP (kirk moore) writes: >[Re: there is a Microport group; why not SCO?] >I seem to have developed a case of foot-n-month. So I pick up the nearest rock >and crawl under it. Sorry for the bandwidth of use for a silly message. Don't worry about it. There were probably dozens of folks who were thinking this; you were the one bold enough to stand up and ask. There were four or five posted responses; none of which flamed you to a crisp. That is because the folks who disagree with the idea understand where it comes from. So, thanks for the opportunity to set the record straight. :-) Be that as it may, the problem might be fixed soon. Check out Chip Salzenberg's (no...not me...the other-other chip) posting in news.groups. We appear to be closing on a vote which will include a microport->sysv286 rename. I think the holdup at this point is getting the silly comp.unix.sco vote over. We are now into the 6th week of this nonsense. So much for the 21-day recommendation... -- Chip Rosenthal | You aren't some icon carved out chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM | of soap, sent down here to clean Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 | up my reputation. -John Hiatt
clay@uci.mn.org (Clayton Haapala) (05/25/90)
Re: the creation of comp.unix.aix -- IMHO the creation of this group was welcomed so most of us could use 'unsubscribe' instead of creating kill files to delete certain subjects and authors involving AIX+heat+!light in the i386 group. Comp.sys.sco should be the way to go. Then, everybody can get what they want with a simple cross-post (if a generic problem or unsure), or directly to the group if the poster knows it's an SCO problem/foible/good-feature-deserving-praise. -- Clayton Haapala ...!bungia!uci!clay (clay@uci.com) Unified Communications Inc. "Every morning I get in the Queue. 3001 Metro Drive - Suite 500 'n get on the Bus that takes me to you." Bloomington, MN 55425 -- the Who
tim@ohday.sybase.com (Tim Wood) (05/26/90)
In article <1254@chinacat.Unicom.COM> chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) writes: >...It's very likely that a vote for renaming both >comp.unix.i386 and comp.unix.microport will happen shortly. My favorite >is comp.unix.sysv286 and comp.unix.sysv386. Hmm, but these (specifically .sysv386) would seem to exclude non-SysV UNIX (interface) alternatives for 386s, like Mach. Since Mach looks to be more technically advanced than SysV (Yes, I'm partial), it would be useful to compare and contrast the two in one group. I'm in favor of keeping the comp.unix.i386 name, for generality. Comp.os.mach would not be the place for application-specific questions of Mach on 386s such as the ones that appear here about SysV on 386s. >In fact, this group demonstrates the failure of a vendor-organized >hierarchy when a subject-oriented hierarchy is needed. I agree, groups should be formed on technical subjects, where vendors' offerings can be compared and applications and generic concepts discussed. -TW --- Sybase, Inc. / 6475 Christie Ave. / Emeryville, CA / 94608 415-596-3500 tim@sybase.com {pacbell,pyramid,sun,{uunet,ucbvax}!mtxinu}!sybase!tim This message is solely my personal opinion. It is not a representation of Sybase, Inc. Ohday.
jessea@dynasys.UUCP (Jesse W. Asher) (05/26/90)
In article <187@shiloh.UUCP> kmoore@shiloh.UUCP (kirk moore) writes: >I think that if Microport has a group, then it is to be expected that the >other vendors will want one to. Since Microport has it own group, then SCO >should nbe allowed. I will carry the group. > As with the aix group, microport is an extremely small group of unix users whose needs cannot be met by any other group. They are not contenders in the unix market and will not be in the future. Your comparison of microport to other vendors of unix (such as SCO) is falicious. -- Jesse W. Asher - Dynasys - (901)382-1705 Evening: (901)382-1609 6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134 UUCP: {fedeva,chromc}!dynasys!jessea
chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) (05/27/90)
[ followups redirected to news.groups ] tim@ohday.sybase.com (Tim Wood) writes: >chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) writes: >>[I like the proposed comp.unix.i386 -> comp.unix.sysv386 renaming.] >Hmm, but these (specifically .sysv386) would seem to exclude non-SysV >UNIX (interface) alternatives for 386s, like Mach. Indeed it would, and that's why I like it. Not that I want to slight Mach or BSD, but splitting them out makes sense. First, the need exists for a home for SysV/386 discussions. While Mach/386 and BSD/386 will be important, the traffic isn't there now to justify groups for them. I believe newsgroups should be created to satisfy an existing demand, and not try to second guess where we will be six months from now. As soon as the need exists, let's get them created. Second, I don't think there will be a lot of synergy achieved by putting all of the 386 unices into one group. For example, the XENIX/SysV split makes sense. I think breaking out Mach and BSD also makes sense. Thirdly, we've just seen the tip of the iceberg. SysV/386 is going to boom. comp.unix.i386 is barely at a managable level now, and SysV/386 is still in its infancy. At some point I expect it will get so large we will want ways to better organize the discussion. If Mach and BSD are lumped in with SysV/386, dollars to doughnuts the first thing proposed would be to split the non-SysV stuff out. Finally, I would expect the Mach and BSD users would prefer to be elsewhere. Just ask the XENIX/68K users what they think of comp.unix.xenix these days. I know that the justification behind my first and third points appears to be in conflict. First I'm saying let's only deal with demonstrated need, and later I'm saying let's plan for the future. The difference is that the statement "SysV/386 is going to grow, and news traffic will as well" seems to be an almost assured event. However, I can't sit here and with the same confidence say what will happen to Mach and BSD in the user community, and how we can best address their users. I would suggest posting your Mach/386 and BSD/386 messages to i386/sysv386 for the time being. Lots of inappropriate postings in the wrong place is the best way to get a newsgroup created :-) -- Chip Rosenthal | You aren't some icon carved out chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM | of soap, sent down here to clean Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 | up my reputation. -John Hiatt