peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (05/02/90)
In article <1106@icdi10.UUCP> fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) writes: [ about non-technical UNIX users] Feeding > comp.unix.xenix or comp.unix.i386 to them is a total waste. I've tried it and > the stuff is simply not read as most of it is way over their heads or plainly > not of interest from their vantage-point. There are existing groups for applications: comp.text, comp.databases, etc. Since many of these applications have DOS equivalents (many are copies of DOS programs) perhaps these groups would be better. > In the small systems world Xenix is still the > standard. And there is a group for that. > The current vitriolic debate about comp.unix.sco could probably have been > avoided by having asked for a 386 applications specific subgroup that most > current readers of comp.unix.xenix or comp.unix.i386 would not have been > interested in and probably not opposed either. At least, that is how I see > the need being that I'm not privy to the proposer's real intent. I agree. My original article on splitting up comp.unix included a comp.unix.apps group. This was not thought a good idea by others, so I dropped it. Perhaps it needs to be reconsidered. > Perhaps there are others out there who actually have user/customers on the > net? What say ye to such a group? I say, let's have a Call For Discussion. New groups: comp.unix.misc comp.unix.huge comp.unix.apps Name changes: comp.unix.microport -> comp.unix.i286 -- _--_|\ `-_-' 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.