bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) (05/01/90)
In article <52@gurgly.UUCP< root@gurgly.UUCP writes:
<You ISC loving dimwits don't understand. (Any more than you know
<how to post as Root, like I do!!)
<
<All I want is for everyone except Interactive to post support messages
<in their own newsgroup: comp.unix.everex, comp.unix.belltech,
<comp.unix.radioshack, comp.unix.sco, comp.unix.dak, comp.unix.sears
<etc. (Interactive shouldn't be allowed to because SCO sells more Xenix
<copies than ISC has sold Unix copies.)
<
<
<PS guess what brand of UNIX I use! No really!
<
Well I'd hazzard a guess of commodore.unix on a vic-20.
--
Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill
: bill@bilver.UUCProot@grumbly.UUCP (rb duc) (05/02/90)
->I think it's time for "root@grumbly" to come clean with exactly what
->his/her relationship is with SCO. Ludicrous attacks like this,
->combined with constant rantings over the newsgroup naming issue,
->("i386" != "386/ix"; i386 is how the dang chip is labeled, fool!)
->make me (at least) think that this person has stronger ties with SCO
->than just a "generic satisfied user."
->
->And, I suppose that the fact that he is located just a few miles
->down the road from SCO is pure coincidence [-:
->
->Alan Denney # Informix # aland@informix.com # {pyramid|uunet}!infmx!aland
My family has been on the west coast since the 1850's - we were here long
before SCO. My mother's side of the family founded Seattle, but I don't
post or work for Microsoft.
I do not work for, nor have I ever worked for SCO (in any way). I use their
software, but not because they are based in a neighboring town.
I actually got dragged into this net war. I thought a few people were
making some bad assumptions. Several posts later I was into the
fray. When people make personal attacks - you must defend yourself.
Most of my posting has been in response to these personal attacks.
A few have presented informed, thought-out responses - many were a
little of both. And several only know how to call people names.
I tried to adjust to each in kind.
Believe it or not Alan, there were a number of people a few weeks ago who
were confused by the name comp.unix.i386. Do you read every piece of
documentation you get? I haven't made many postings about it either!
Most of what you see are Re:s and responses with the original posting
included.
This thing has been hashed out fairly well now. How about some new business.
rb duc
--
\\\ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >
- - Richard Ducoty ..uunet!grumbly!root
_] Capitola, Calif root@grumbly.com
U tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (05/02/90)
In article <59@grumbly.UUCP> root@grumbly.UUCP (rb duc) writes: >Believe it or not Alan, there were a number of people a few weeks ago who >were confused by the name comp.unix.i386. Do you read every piece of >documentation you get? The purpose of the newsgroup is explained both in the news.announce.newusers postings, and in the 'newsgroups' file distributed with B news. Nobody reads EVERY scrap of documentation, but news.announce.newusers is the FIRST thing everyone ought to read before posting. Even then, nobody can memorize every newsgroup, but when the question of a SPECIFIC group's purpose comes up, the reference document is the FIRST thing people should check. There is no excuse. If "a number of people" (I'm thinking of a certain VERY SMALL number here ;-) ) got the message the last few weeks, that's good news.
root@grumbly.UUCP (rb duc) (05/02/90)
In article <889@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
-> I think that this person is what you would call a "groupie" for SCO.
->He is infatuated with their wonderfullness and wants us all to share it.
->I can't believe that SCO would be crazy enough to allow anyone
->associated with them to do this, even from a personally owned machine. I
->am surprised that they have not taken an official position against this,
->since it draws bad publicity for them and seems to gain them no benefits.
->bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
-> moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
I'm kind of suprised that a net moderator would try to stifle discussion
with intimidating posts like this one. It doesn't bother me much, but
it well might keep some people from posting. Do you really think these
postings will have any effect on SCO's ( or any other vendors ) business?
Who do you think is going to pay any attention to what you say when you
continue to fill your postings with blatant untruths ( lie is too strong
a word ).
Almost every posting I have made lately has been in response to the above
and its like. Hey, I've got other things to do besides explaining things
to you.
Try a little experiment - print out all these postings - take out the names
then give it to a few people who know nothing about it. They will
probably burst out laughing and ask what high school it came from.
rb duc
--
\\\ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >
- - Richard Ducoty ..uunet!grumbly!root
_] Capitola, Calif root@grumbly.com
U davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (05/03/90)
In article <60@grumbly.UUCP> root@grumbly.UUCP (rb duc) writes: | I'm kind of suprised that a net moderator would try to stifle discussion | with intimidating posts like this one. It doesn't bother me much, but | it well might keep some people from posting. Do you really think these | postings will have any effect on SCO's ( or any other vendors ) business? I don't see anything intimidating about my thinking you have an emotional attachment to the issue, nor that I state doubt that SCO will benefit from it. I certainly didn't make any statement based on being a moderator, nor do I feel that I should fail to have an opinion on things. I post any harsh opinions from my personal machine instead of a work machine, but I don't think anything I said was in any way harsh. I know very well that postings affect sales. I have gotten mail over the years saying that good or bad points I had mentioned had caused them to make or change a decision. I don't think that any vendor is going to make or break on the basis of these postings, but then all I said was that I would have expected SCO to take a position on this, probably one of hands off ("We are not the sponsors of this, we'll read it if it happens but won't abandon the existing groups"). | | Who do you think is going to pay any attention to what you say when you | continue to fill your postings with blatant untruths ( lie is too strong | a word ). Be careful what you say. I labeled most of what I wrote as opinion, to avoid misleading anyone. | | Almost every posting I have made lately has been in response to the above | and its like. Hey, I've got other things to do besides explaining things | to you. I have seen no evidence that you contribute anything to other groups, and the volume of your indignant postings certainly doesn't leave much time for other things. Look at the people who have been trying to clarify the reasons why we don't need another group. There are a number of people who are contributors (not just posters) in other groups, moderators, members of standards groups, and contributors to source and binary groups. People are not disagreeing with you because you are being unconvincing and repitious, they are disagreeing with you because they think you're WRONG. Stop taking it so personally. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (05/03/90)
>]Can't you guys do this over the phone? I pay for my news and don't like >]supporting the Interactive sales staff >]-- >] /// - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >] 0 0 Richard Ducoty ..uunet!grumbly!root >] > Capitola, Calif root@grumbly.com >] ` > > And this guy wants his own sco group. How come the term > complete jerk comes to mind?? Because it fits so well. It only takes one guy like this to mess up a group some times. He seems to be working hard at it. -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.com
root@grumbly.UUCP (rb duc) (05/04/90)
In article <900@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: ->In article <60@grumbly.UUCP> root@grumbly.UUCP (rb duc) writes: -> ->| I'm kind of suprised that a net moderator would try to stifle discussion ->| with intimidating posts like this one. It doesn't bother me much, but ->| it well might keep some people from posting. Do you really think these ->| postings will have any effect on SCO's ( or any other vendors ) business? -> I don't see anything intimidating about my thinking you have an ->emotional attachment to the issue, nor that I state doubt that SCO will ->benefit from it. > From <899@sixhub.UUCP> - bill davidsen > moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list > quoted from previous post > " I think that this person is what you would call a "groupie" for SCO. > He is infatuated with their wonderfullness and wants us all to share it. > I can't believe that SCO would be crazy enough to allow anyone > associated with them to do this, even from a personally owned machine. I > am suprised that they have not taken an official position against this, > since it draws bad publicity for them and seems to gain them no benifits." Well, now that I look it over again, it isn't that intimidating. It does contain distortions, however, and once again infers that I am associated with SCO or am acting on their behest. This has been denied repeatedly and is what bothered me about the post. You have a position of responsibility - a Congressman is still a Congressman, whether he is calling from his office phone or his home phone. Some of the posts I've seen could be a bit daunting, though I wouldn't put yours in that group. -> I know very well that postings affect sales. I have gotten mail over ->the years saying that good or bad points I had mentioned had caused them ->to make or change a decision. Yes, postings of a factual, technical nature might very well affect sales. -> I have seen no evidence that you contribute anything to other groups, ->and the volume of your indignant postings certainly doesn't leave much ->time for other things. Look at the people who have been trying to ->clarify the reasons why we don't need another group. There are a number ->of people who are contributors (not just posters) in other groups, ->moderators, members of standards groups, and contributors to source and ->binary groups. Well we probably have different interests and different sys files. I'm sure there are fine people on both sides. -> People are not disagreeing with you because you are being unconvincing ->and repitious, they are disagreeing with you because they think you're ->WRONG. Stop taking it so personally. I have been repetitious because people keep making the same false statements [see paragraph 4 above] and I do take someone calling me a jerk somewhat personally. sincerely, rbduc -- \\\ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > - - Richard Ducoty ..uunet!grumbly!root _] Capitola, Calif root@grumbly.com U
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (05/09/90)
In article <1990Apr27.004437.8893@virtech.uucp>, cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes: > There are a couple of other companies that have 82786 and/or TI 34010 > based intelligent cards running in the range of $1300 to $1900 for the > card itself. I have more info in my office about these cards, so if you > want more info, send me email. Several people emailed me for this info, so I thought it best to post: When recently looking around at new X displays I ran accross the following two boards: Artist graphics TI10/12/16/20 family TI 34010 and 34020 based boards running at 50 & 60 MHZ various resolutions including: 1024x768x8 (color) 1280x1024x4 (color) 1664x1200x2 (Monochrome) 1664x1200x1 (Monochrome) Artist Graphics A Control Systems Company 2675 Patton Road St Paul Minnesota 55113 (800) 627-8478 (612) 631-7800 Univision UDC-200, UDC-2600 Series Intel 82786 based boards with many configurations and resolutions including the following: 1280x1024x8 (Color) 2048x1536x2 (Monochrome) 1600x1200x1 (Monochrome) Univision Technologies, Inc Three Burlington Woods Burlington, MA 01803 (617) 221-6700 NOTE: I have not tested/used any of the products listed above. All information is directly from marketing blurbs, so it is not verified. If you are interested, call them. Not me. -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc., uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170