peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (05/02/90)
In article <217@pcssc.UUCP> dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes: > I was not able to set up a user called no on my Xenix/386 system because > it is only a 2 character user name. So do what other people have done and create "vote-yes" and "vote-no". > After posting my first call to votes I was informed by a opponent to this > group that uu.net is intended to be use only by internal machines to > uunet. Let's call a spade a spade. I sent you that mail because I just receieved a draft of a form letter from UUNET. The letter basically said "The .uu.net domain is only for UUNET machines. At some point in the future we will no longer forward mail to this address". I thought you might want to know about that ahead of time. > Our sight is registered and either method seems to get here > fine. If your site is registered, then you should be using the .com entry. I will be doing the same as soon as our domain registration comes through. I wish the folks at UUNET had been a bit more on the ball about this. Apparently they changed their policy a while back and forgot to tell anyone. In any case they're taking care of the problem and all UUNET customers should be informed pretty soon. > Why comp.unix.sco instead of comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386? > There are currently several groups that SCO users are welcome to post to > Two of these groups are comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386. The > descriptions of the groups read as follows: > comp.unix.i386 - Versions of Unix running on Intel 80386-bases boxes > comp.unix.xenix - Discussions about the Xenix OS. > SCO users are welcome to post to either group. They are intended for > operating system related question. Posting not regarding the OS are may > also be posted here but are usually inappropriate in this groups. What other postings would one be making? SCO is an operating systems house. Applications software that runs under SCO UNIX also runs under all the other UNIX boxes out there, and is just as appropriate (or inappropriate) in .i386 as in the suggested .sco group. > There are also other groups that can also be used for non-OS discussions. Make that *should*. What subject matter is it that is appropriate for .sco but not for .i386, .xenix, or (say) comp.databases? > The intention of comp.unix.sco is to have one groups that will encompass > all of the above for SCO users. *Which* SCO users? Why should SCO Xenix users have to plow through UNIX junk? Why should SCO UNIX users care about Xenix? > Why are so many people against this group? Because it's a bad idea. > Most the negative posting are from the same people that feel that they > need to express their opinions over and over again. The same might be said of the supporters of comp.unix.sco. When people keep posting messages containing the same invalid arguments again and again, it becomes necessary to refute them again and again. I'd also like to point out that continued politicking after the call for votes is considered inappropriate. Discussion in news.groups is one thing, but blatant requests for votes broadcast all over the net are a no-no. I got .i386 passed without any such shenanigans. If .sco is a good idea, you will be able to do the same. > They have various > reasons to be against this group but in general they do not want to change > the way thing are. Right. That's why we're calling for a wholesale redesign of the comp.unix hierarchy. We're so scared of change we need to change everything to prove it. Finally, directing followups to "poster" is a cheap trick. Politicking for a group after the call for votes is a cheap trick. This message was crossposted to comp.unix.xenix, comp.unix.i386, comp.unix.questions, comp.unix.wizards, and news.groups. What? You forgot comp.std.unix, comp.misc, comp.arch, and half a dozen other vaguely relevant groups... -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net> / \ 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> \_.--._/ Disclaimer: commercial solicitation by email to this address v is acceptable.
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (05/02/90)
In article <217@pcssc.UUCP> dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes: >Why nay@pcssc.com instead of no@pcssc.com? > >I was not able to set up a user called no on my Xenix/386 system because >it is only a 2 character user name. I had assumed that having a alias of >2 characters would pose the same problem. The original point was your complaint that had comp.unix.sco been created, you would have found this out. I fail to realize why comp.unix.xenix would not have served that purpose. >Why comp.unix.sco instead of biz.sco? > >The biz groups are for groups ran by the vendors themselves and is >normally moderated by the vendor. This is not the case at all. Not ONE of the biz groups is moderated. The purpose of the biz groups is to allow vendor-specific discussions, whether initiated by users, resellers or the vendor itself. >SCO users are welcome to post to either [comp.unix.xenix or >comp.unix.i386]. They are intended for operating system related >question. Posting not regarding the OS are may >also be posted here but are usually inappropriate in this groups. >[...] >The intention of comp.unix.sco is to have one groups that will encompass >all of the above for SCO users. In this new group discussions, questions, >bug reports, ect. regarding ALL SCO products can take place. I would agree that there is no clearly apparent newsgroup for either spreadsheets or MS-DOS-under-Unix. While I have not seen much traffic from anyone on spreadsheets, there may be enough traffic on VP/ix and Merge to justify its own group. But that's a separate discussion. Should people using SCO VP/ix post to a different group than all other users of VP/ix? Do the SCO users not have an interest in reaching the largest pool of users, whether they're using SCO's version or someone else's? Would you have people with problems with SCO FoxBase post questions in the sco group? Or, would you acknowledge that comp.database is read by people from Ashton-Tate and people familiar with non-SCO versions of FoxBase, as well as those who use SCO FoxBase. Present news-reading software has ample mechanisms to allow one to ignore discussions one isn't interested in. Are questions on SCO Elan supposed to go to the sco group, when the expertise in this field (including net.readers from Elan itself) is clearly in comp.text? If you have a problem with SCO TCP/IP talking to other systems, where would you get the best response - from the catch-all sco group, or from the group(s) specializing in tcp-ip? Even for Xenix itself, why do SCO users have different goals from users of Tandy Xenix or IBM Xenix? There are hundreds of other exmples of this point: Whose interest is served when SCO users segregate themselves from the rest of the net? >Is SCO in favor of this group? > >Yes, personnel at SCO has since the call to vote expressed that they are >in favor of this group. They feel that this group will help them to >better support their customers that are members of the use-net community. >The following is the email I received from Doug Michels at SCO: > > "I would be delighted to see a group of this sort created. It would > be a real service to SCO customers around the world and SCO would > enthusiastically support the activities of such a group in whatever > manner the group felt was appropriate and useful. Actually, it is this element of the discussion that saddens me the most. SCO, if it were indeed dedicated to uniting the Unix industry rather than further fragmenting it, should have been the first to try to talk you out of a separate group. Instead, their sales flaks and management would love to keep people thinking that their Unix is not, at its base, the same as others' 386 Unix. Based on mail I have received from people at SCO, I assure you the view is not unanimous within the company. The company is nothing more than a value-added reseller for Unix and applications, and on rare occasions a developer of original products. While its value-added is often significant, its role in the marketplace is no different from Interactive, ESIX, etc. except for its size and parentage. >Why are so many people against this group? > >Most the negative posting are from the same people that feel that they >need to express their opinions over and over again. They have various >reasons to be against this group but in general they do not want to change >the way thing are. This is the third posting from Dave in which an otherwise reasoned opinion degenerates near the end to personal attacks and paranoia. There have been reasoned opinions stated on both sides of the issue. If you choose to see those opposed to the group as merely net.luddites, that is your option. But if you take a close look, you will notice that you too can be grouped along with those who "need to express their opinions again and again". How many nearly-identical postings have you made, defending the group, SINCE the call for votes? If there were points to be made, you should have made them during the discussion period. >Is it not improper for the vote taker to be so obviously for this group? > >No, I also am free to express my opinions and reasons for this groups just >as my opponents are able to express why they may be against this group. That's not the point. The purpose behind separate discussion and voting periods is to allow for a voting period without electioneering. There have been a number of tactics in this vote, none of which on their own would be much cause for complaint, but which together bring the fairness of this campaign into question: - Setting "Followup-To: poster" on your articles to discourage comment; - Having yes votes to be mailed to "yes" but no votes to "nay"; - Not posting an interim voters' list; - Telling people against the group not to vote; - Shameless electioneering during the voting period; - Indulging in personal attacks on the peoposal's critics; - Posting other people's private e-mail in support; It is good to see that at least a few of these tactics have been changed. But not all. Although as the group proposer you should obviously be in favour of what you're proposing, once you become a vote-TAKER you have to switch to being objective, and let the votes fall where they may. If there are more (different) arguments to be made for the group, then that means you cut off the discussion period too soon. -- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / Moderator - rec.arts.erotica "I will walk where no man has never been!" - The Ultimate Warrior
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (05/02/90)
[Followups to news.groups, not "poster". There's still discussion to do...] According to dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust): >In this new group discussions, questions, bug reports, ect. >regarding ALL SCO products can take place. This proposed charter is both too narrow (only one vendor: SCO) and too broad (all sorts of software: operating systems, word processing, databases, etc, etc). >Is SCO in favor of this group? Who cares? Usenet doesn't belong to SCO. >The following is the email I received from Doug Michels at SCO: Namedropping will *not* help. >Most the negative posting are from the same people that feel that >they need to express their opinions over and over again. Mr. Armbrust here presumes to explain my motives as well as the motives of other people who object to comp.unix.sco. In the process, he has provided a real-life example of the pot calling the kettle black. >They have various reasons to be against this group but in general >they do not want to change the way thing are. This assertion is false. I, for example, am currently collecting opinions on a general reorganization of the comp.unix.* hierarchy. I am doing so because several groups are badly named (comp.unix.i386, comp.unix.microport), and because there are some obvious groups (comp.unix.admin, comp.unix.misc) that could be created. Given this activity, I hardly fit Mr. Armbrust's description of a reactionary. [Note, however, that the comp.unix reorganization has been put on hold until the comp.unix.sco issue has been resolved. I do not wish my proposals to become enmeshed in the comp.unix.sco debacle.] >The posting you see do not reflect the general opinions of the >net-users. Now Mr. Armbrust is a mind reader? I think not. >You will see this posting torn apart and criticized. You got that right, Bo. >This use-net is a great example of democracy in action. Mr. Armbrust does not understand the Usenet at all. A democracy is, ideally, a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Usenet is a network of the owners, by the administrators and for the users. In a democracy, the people are the eventual basis of all power. Power in Usenet comes from owning and/or administering a machine. The difference is obvious to anyone familiar with Usenet. +-------------------------------------------------+ | Comp.unix.sco must go. This is non-negotiable. | +-------------------------------------------------+ The arguments against comp.unix.sco are not as easily dismissed as Mr. Armbrust would wish. Comp.unix.sco would be a confused mix of operating systems, development systems and applications with only one thing in common: the "SCO" name on the boxes they came in. This is the Usenet of the future? If comp.unix.i386 is too crowded, there are more intelligent ways to split it. If particular SCO applications have no appropriate newsgroups, such can be created to cover broad application classes. But comp.unix.sco is *not* the answer. I urge: Just say "Nay" to comp.unix.sco. The vote adresses are <nay@pcssc.com> (Nay) or <yes@pcssc.com> (Yes). -- Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT <chip%tct@ateng.com>, <uunet!ateng!tct!chip>
sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) (05/03/90)
In article <217@pcssc.UUCP> dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes: }I was not able to set up a user called no on my Xenix/386 system because }it is only a 2 character user name. I had assumed that having a alias of Huh, since when. I've used sl as a Unix user ID for going on five years on small systems here. Oh - you mean that the sysadmsh won't accept a user id less than three. }The intention of comp.unix.sco is to have one groups that will encompass }all of the above for SCO users. In this new group discussions, questions, }bug reports, ect. regarding ALL SCO products can take place. This new }group is neither technical or non-technical, all posting are welcome. }This group comp.unix.sco can be used for simple questions or heavy }technical discussions. This group is not limited to discussions regarding }SCO Operating Systems (UNIX/XENIX). Posting regarding SCO applications }are welcome in this group. Even posting regarding SCO applications on If you want a general discussion area for SCO it should *NOT* be under comp.unix. That's where discussion of Unix takes place. Perhaps a comp.sco or biz.sco or alt.sco. There may or may not be some merit to another comp.unix group to discuss the SCO version of Unix but creating a group there to discuss topics that are not related to Unix except that they run under unix is a bad idea. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)