davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (05/04/90)
In article <6005@scolex.sco.COM> seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) writes: | In article <218@pcssc.UUCP> dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes: | >SCO is compatable with other AT&T System V.3.2 but as I understand they are | >not using the same port that other UNIX's have used. | | No. As far as I know, we used the same port that everyone else did. From | what I understand, we *had* to, in order to be able to call it 'UNIX(tm)'. | AT&T licenses the name, of course, and they have some restrictions on what | can be called UNIX. There goes one argument. | | >My understanding is they took their Xenix Sys V release 2 port and made | >it release 3 compatable. If I am wrong on this please correct me. | | You're wrong. 8-) There goes another. There are some very good arguments for comp.unix.i386.apps, and Peter has made most of them (although I don't think that's the name he mentioned). Since the same apps run on ALL 386 versions called UNIX (they have to to get the right to call it UNIX) there could be one group. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) (05/04/90)
In article <2237@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: > There are some very good arguments for comp.unix.i386.apps, and Peter >has made most of them (although I don't think that's the name he >mentioned). Since the same apps run on ALL 386 versions called UNIX >(they have to to get the right to call it UNIX) there could be one group. For that matter most if not all apps that run on 286 also will run on 386 Unix/Xenix systems. For this reason putting app as a sub group of i386 does not make sence to me. What makes more sense is comp.unix.apps. I also beleive that the vendor is important and should be part of this name. Lets take Lyrix as an example. Most questions regarding lyrix is not going to be so simple that someone that knows eroff or Microsoft Word is going to be able to answer this question. If the group comp.unix.sco passes then we will be able to add sub-groups with in this group if there is a call for this. comp.unix.sco.lyrix I beleive would make more sense then comp.unix.i386.apps.lyrix. It may be that discussions for 386/Unix OS should go into comp.unix.i386 rather then comp.unix.sco. (Yes you heard right I did back down a tad!) But other applications sold primarly or exclusively by SCO (ODT, lyrix, Office Portfolo, ect) should be in comp.unix.sco or a sub-group of comp.unix.sco. Comp.unix.sco is a good start. It would give us something that can be built on if needed or desired. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Armbrust | uunet!pcssc!dma PC Software Systems | Phone: (813)365-1162 2121 Cornell Street | Sarasota, FL 34237 |
jtc@van-bc.UUCP (J.T. Conklin) (05/04/90)
In article <229@pcssc.UUCP> dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes: >Lets take Lyrix as an example. Most questions regarding lyrix is not >going to be so simple that someone that knows eroff or Microsoft Word >is going to be able to answer this question. You wouldn't get much help from the TeX, troff, WP, or Word folks in comp.text, but what about Uniplex. (Wasn't Lyrix derived from Uniplex?) >If the group comp.unix.sco >passes then we will be able to add sub-groups with in this group if >there is a call for this. comp.unix.sco.lyrix I beleive would make >more sense then comp.unix.i386.apps.lyrix. If a Unix applications group is created, you can be assured that we would tie it to a particular software/hardware platform. In fact, it probably shouldn't even be tied to operating system! It makes much more sense to separate it by application type. comp.applications.text-processing comp.applications.databases comp.applications.office-automation >It may be that discussions for 386/Unix OS should go into comp.unix.i386 >rather then comp.unix.sco. (Yes you heard right I did back down a tad!) >But other applications sold primarly or exclusively by SCO (ODT, lyrix, >Office Portfolo, ect) should be in comp.unix.sco or a sub-group of >comp.unix.sco. Again, I must point out that ODT is merely a repackaging of other vendors product which are/may be availiable from the original source. Even on completely different hardware platforms. I invite you to describe the significant differences between: Xsight MIT X Consortium X11R3 Motif OSF/Motif Ingres RTI Ingres TCP/IP TCP/IP NFS NFS Separating the SCO users of these products fragment them the other users on the network. There is a hugenormous abundance of expertise on the net, but it can only be shared if we cooperate. --jtc -- J.T. Conklin UniFax Communications Inc. ...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!jtc, jtc@wimsey.bc.ca
pim@cti-software.nl (Pim Zandbergen) (05/04/90)
dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes: >comp.unix.sco.lyrix I beleive would make >more sense then comp.unix.i386.apps.lyrix. None of them make sense to me. comp.text does, maybe even comp.text.lyrix when there is an overwhelming need for it. -- Pim Zandbergen domain : pim@cti-software.nl CTI Software BV uucp : uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!ctisbv!pim Laan Copes van Cattenburch 70 phone : +31 70 3542302 2585 GD The Hague, The Netherlands fax : +31 70 3512837
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (05/05/90)
In article <229@pcssc.UUCP> dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes: > Lets take Lyrix as an example. ... comp.unix.sco.lyrix I beleive would make > more sense then comp.unix.i386.apps.lyrix. And since Lyrix isn't locked into SCO, comp.unix.apps.lyrix makes even more sense. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net> 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> @FIN Commercial solicitation *is* accepted by email to this address.
dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) (05/05/90)
In article <376@van-bc.UUCP> jtc@van-bc.UUCP (J.T. Conklin) writes: >>If the group comp.unix.sco >>passes then we will be able to add sub-groups with in this group if >>there is a call for this. comp.unix.sco.lyrix I beleive would make >>more sense then comp.unix.i386.apps.lyrix. > >If a Unix applications group is created, you can be assured that we >would tie it to a particular software/hardware platform. In fact, it >probably shouldn't even be tied to operating system! It makes much >more sense to separate it by application type. > > comp.applications.text-processing > comp.applications.databases > comp.applications.office-automation It does not make sense to tie applications groups to specific software/hardware platforms. Most applications don't care what platform they run on as long as it is a true Unix platform. comp.applications.text-processing need to be tied at least to the OS. (i.e. comp.unix.applications.text-processing). But this is still too broad. Does anyone know how many different text-processing apps run under UNIX? Even if we could convince users with a lyrix question to post to comp.unix.applications.text-processing do you think a person with expertise with lyrix would spend the time to read through these postings about all these different text processor? Do you think SCO is unreasonable because they don't want to either? Besides non-technical users do not want to read about all the different word processors, they want to read about THEIR word processor. There may be an argument for comp.unix.lyrix rather then comp.unix.sco.lyrix but this is a specific product developed and marketted by SCO. If this was the only specific product sold by SCO then comp.unix.lyrix may be a better choice, but SCO has many unique products and are adding more all the time. (Lyrix, ODT, Office Portfolio, ect). Yes open-descktop is a SCO only product. There would not be enought trafic for lyrix to have it own group. There would not be enough for ODT, Office Portfolio, Manager, ect. either. There would be enought for all these to be combined into comp.unix.sco and if further sub-divission is needed it can then be added. >I invite you to describe the significant differences between: > > Xsight MIT X Consortium X11R3 > Motif OSF/Motif > Ingres RTI Ingres > TCP/IP TCP/IP > NFS NFS > >Separating the SCO users of these products fragment them the other >users on the network. They many products that they remarket with 'added function' and they have products that remarket unchanged. Depending on the 'degree of added function' it may be more desirable to group these with other 'nearly identical' products. Comp.unix.sco does not prevent us from from doing this. > There is a hugenormous abundance of expertise >on the net, but it can only be shared if we cooperate. And this hugenormous abundance of expertise is almost impossible for a non-expert to get at. What is so wrong with making it a little easier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Armbrust | uunet!pcssc!dma PC Software Systems | Phone: (813)365-1162 2121 Cornell Street | Sarasota, FL 34237 |
rli@buster.irby.com (Buster Irby) (05/06/90)
dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes: >comp.applications.text-processing need to be tied at least to the OS. >(i.e. comp.unix.applications.text-processing). But this is still too >broad. Does anyone know how many different text-processing apps run >under UNIX? Even if we could convince users with a lyrix question to post to >comp.unix.applications.text-processing do you think a person with expertise >with lyrix would spend the time to read through these postings about all these >different text processor? Do you think SCO is unreasonable because they don't >want to either? Besides non-technical users do not want to read about all the >different word processors, they want to read about THEIR word processor. Do you believe that this person with lyrix expertise will want to spend the time to to read through all of the technical discussions which would occur in your proposed group comp.unix.sco? Non technical users do not want to read about the operating system either! In the future you should refrain from dragging your version of the opinions of SCO into this discussion. If SCO has anything to say on this subject then the SCO news administrator or some other authorized representative of SCO can tell us how they feel on this subject. Furthermore, if you want this group setup so SCO can support their products, then we are in the wrong section of the network. Vendor sponsored support groups belong in biz.* not in comp.*. -- Buster Irby buster!rli
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (05/06/90)
In article <230@pcssc.UUCP> dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes: > It does not make sense to tie applications groups to specific software/hardware > platforms. Most applications don't care what platform they run on as long > as it is a true Unix platform. Is this really Dave (SCO isn't UNIX dammit) Armbrust talking? It does not make sense to tie user groups to specific software/hardware platforms. Most users don't care what platform they run applications on as long as they run. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net> 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> @FIN Commercial solicitation *is* accepted by email to this address.