tim@comcon.UUCP (Tim Brown) (05/02/90)
Personally I have benifited time and time again from the mix in this group. Unix is unix and we all (as in all brands) help each other and benifit from the association. I say we leave it the way it is. Tim Brown | Computer Connection | uunet!iuvax.cs.indiana.edu!ndmath!nstar!comcon!tim |
dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) (05/03/90)
In article <382@comcon.UUCP> tim@comcon.UUCP (Tim Brown) writes: > >Personally I have benifited time and time again from the mix in this >group. Unix is unix and we all (as in all brands) help each other and >benifit from the association. I say we leave it the way it is. I beleive that one thing we can count on is that things will not stay the way they are. There is too much to be desired in the current break down of comp.unix. Changes will occur. Letting SCO users have their own group (comp.unix.sco) is one of the less frighting things that can happen!
paul@dialogic.com (The Imaginative Moron aka Joey Pheromone) (05/03/90)
In article <221@pcssc.UUCP> dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes: >In article <382@comcon.UUCP> tim@comcon.UUCP (Tim Brown) writes: >> >>Personally I have benifited time and time again from the mix in this >>group. Unix is unix and we all (as in all brands) help each other and >>benifit from the association. I say we leave it the way it is. > >I beleive that one thing we can count on is that things will not stay >the way they are. There is too much to be desired in the current Dave, you can beleive what you want, but whether it matches reality is another matter. I see *no* such tendency in this group - nearly all the replies to your push for comp.sco.unix have been along the lines of "I like it fine as it is". *I* believe the voting will show this - only time will show which of us has the correct belief. I have already registered a "nay" vote. Also, I did not receive an acknowledgement of my vote. It's usual to do this, so the sender can be sure it got there, and didn't end up on the floor. I think it would be appreciated if you alter you ballot box to do this, especially in the light of the controversial nature of the vote. I still do not understand why you want to create comp.unix.sco. I saw no objective discussion in the charter for the group - only a series of endorsements by people whose impartially was in question (this is not the way "things are done" around here - which I think explains the noise that the posting generated). As has been pointed out, most of the traffic in this group is generic UNIX 386 questions. It seems to me that the only thing that will happen is that SCO users will post generic UNIX questions to it, and cross-post to here, with the result that comp.unix.sco becomes a total subset of comp.unix.i386. Creating a separate group is the *wrong way* to achieve this partitioning. It uses a lot of resources, which are precious. You can achieve the same effect with any decent news reader - simply use kill files, etc. Can you give an example of the sort of question or discussion that could be served by comp.unix.sco, but *not* by comp.unix.i386 ? -- Paul Bennett | | "I give in, to sin, because Dialogic Corp. | paul@dialogic.UUCP | You have to make this life 300 Littleton Road | ..!uunet!dialogic!paul | livable" Parsippany, NJ 07054 | | Martin Gore
ela@bdgltd.UUCP (Ed Ackerman Programmer) (05/03/90)
In article <382@comcon.UUCP> tim@comcon.UUCP (Tim Brown) writes: > >Personally I have benifited time and time again from the mix in this >group. Unix is unix and we all (as in all brands) help each other and >benifit from the association. I say we leave it the way it is. > Amen, brother. Since, according to the last figures I saw, SCO has a majority of the installed/sold systems (Xenix) why bother? It's bad enough that I have wade through 3 or 4 groups to get answers now. Isn't the whole point of OSF/UI to eliminate all the differing versions of Unix out there? Why when the Unix vendors are starting to get their act together, are we arguing about spliting a group off? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Ackerman | It is impossible to make anything bdgltd!ela@dsi.com or ...!dsinc!bdgltd!ela| foolproof beacause fools are #include <StdDisclaimer> | SO ingenious!
aland@infmx.UUCP (Dr. Scump) (05/05/90)
In article <54@grumbly.UUCP> root@grumbly.UUCP writes: >But the people who aren't interested in dos have to wade through all the >dos articles to get to the unix posts. At times there are quite a few >dos related posts in c.u.i386. Then how about comp.os.dos to consolidate DOS-specific issues, leaving comp.sys.ibm.pc for hardware/firmware issues? Wasn't this idea batted around a while back? > > UNIX >-------- would be a natural for its own group. > DOS Sure, something like comp.unix.dosmerge (or something less proprietary) >Is anyone interested in getting this going? I'm not conversant in making >new groups (no flames please - fry some ants with a magnifying glass >or something). Let's see what kind of feedback comes out... in any event, I fail to see how this helps to motivate an SCO-specific additional newsgroup... > - - Richard Ducoty ..uunet!grumbly!root -- Alan Denney # Informix # aland@informix.com # {pyramid|uunet}!infmx!aland "Confidentially, I never told you of her charms Confidentially, we never had a home But this railroad apartment was the perfect place When she'd sit and hold me in her arms." -- TMBG