dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) (03/23/90)
This is a call for discussion regarding the creation of a new group called comp.unix.sco. This group would be intended for postings regarding all products from Santa Cruz Operations; Including but not limited to SCO Xenix, SCO Unix, Xsight, (ODT) Open Desk Top, Lyrix, VP/ix, SCO Professional, etc. Most posting for SCO are currently being posted under unix.comp.xenix. This group is for posting regarding all Xenix systems not just SCO. SCO is currently shipping SCO Unix which is no longer called Xenix. There is currently a group called comp.unix.i386. This group is for posting regarding unix on Intel 386 based computers. SCO does run on 386 computers but not exclusively 386 machines. For these reasons there is confusion to where posting regarding SCO products should be posted. It is my suggestion that a new group called comp.unix.sco be created rather then renaming the group comp.unix.xenix. --------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Armbrust | uunet!pcssc!dma PC Software Systems | Phone: (813)365-1162 2121 Cornell Street | Sarasota, FL 34237 |
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (03/27/90)
dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) suggests a new group comp.unix.sco. > This group would be intended for postings regarding all products > from Santa Cruz Operations; Including but not limited to SCO > Xenix, SCO Unix, Xsight, (ODT) Open Desk Top, Lyrix, VP/ix, SCO > Professional, etc. There are already newsgroups suitable for the intended purposes. Xenix- specific discussions can go in comp.unix.xenix. UNIX-specific discussions (referring to the AT&T-based V.3 product) can go in comp.unix.i386. Dis- cussions which overlap the two (such as the common questions about "should I buy Xenix or UNIX?") are most logically cross-posted to the two. The SCO UNIX discussion has so far been carried out in comp.unix.i386, and I think we've all benefitted from the interchange there. The major difficulty I see with adding an SCO-specific group is that there are many discussions which really apply to various vendors of 386 systems. To the extent that the discussions bear on SCO UNIX, I expect we'd see a lot of cross-posting, since their base code and VP/ix is based on the same code used by the other vendors in that arena. To the extent that SCO discussions apply to a variety of unrelated products, I feel it's a bad precedent to set up new manufacturer-oriented groups instead of discussing by topic...I'd really not want to see comp.unix.isc, comp.unix.esix, comp.unix.intel, comp.unix.att, come out of this. > ...there is confusion to where posting regarding > SCO products should be posted. I haven't seen any confusion in comp.unix.i386. Perhaps it exists in comp.unix.xenix for historical reasons, but that confusion will resolve itself as SCO's UNIX product becomes better known. Moreover, that same temporary confusion would exist with any new group. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.
root@grumbly.UUCP (Superuser) (03/27/90)
In article <1990Mar26.213809.26999@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) ->>dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) suggests a new group comp.unix.sco. ->> This group would be intended for postings regarding all products ->> from Santa Cruz Operations ->There are already newsgroups suitable for the intended purposes. They aren't well defined enough - I have thought, and maybe others have, that comp.unix.i386 was for Interactive's unix ->The SCO UNIX discussion has so far been carried out in comp.unix.i386 The SCO unix discussions have been all over the place!! comp.unix.i386 is in 2nd or 3rd place numberwise IMHO ->The major difficulty I see with adding an SCO-specific group is that there ->are many discussions which really apply to various vendors of 386 systems. ->To the extent that the discussions bear on SCO UNIX, I expect we'd see a ->lot of cross-posting, since their base code and VP/ix is based on the same ->code used by the other vendors in that arena. The cross posting might actually be cut down if everyone if there was a comp.unix.sco group. I cross-post to catch all the places someone might put a sco unix post. ->To the extent that SCO discussions apply to a variety of unrelated ->products, I feel it's a bad precedent to set up new manufacturer-oriented ->groups instead of discussing by topic...I'd really not want to see ->comp.unix.isc, comp.unix.esix, comp.unix.intel, comp.unix.att, come out ->of this. I don't think that would happen much; ibm, dec and others exist already. SCO, like them, has a large base and could have its own. I'ld feel much better about your arguments if you didn't work for Interactive!! ->I haven't seen any confusion in comp.unix.i386. I have! ->Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 -> ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew. sorry I don't like alcohol Richard Ducoty root@grumbly.com Capitola CA -- /// - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > 0 0 Richard Ducoty ..uunet!grumbly!root > Capitola, Calif root@grumbly.com `
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (03/28/90)
Dick Dunn is exactly right, regardless of his employer. We do not need a separate SCO products newsgroup. There are a number of classic reasons for collecting articles in a newsgroup, but "because XYZ is the vendor" is not a good one. If SCO wants to start a support mailing list they can and should. In the meantime, topics should be grouped by functionality, not nameplate. Yes, crossposting is sometimes necessary and appropriate. That's what it was invented for! It happens all the time with all kinds of vendors' products. SCO is nothing special. Keep in mind that Interactive sells other things too, as do many other vendors. If comp.unix.interactive were proposed, I would vote against that too, and I would expect to see Dick Dunn's vote next to my own. (Unless the vote counter did an alpha sort :-) ) -- Psychoanalysis is the mental illness \\\ Tom Neff it purports to cure. -- Karl Kraus \\\ tneff@bfmn0.UU.NET
dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) (03/28/90)
In article <9003271338.AA14014@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> >While I think xenix is different enought to warrant a group, sco's Sys V >is so similar that comp.unix.i386 covers it. I have had several responses since the call for discussion stating that they did not realize that comp.unix.i386 is for all 386 Unix versions. For this reason comp.unix.xenix gets postings that would be better posted in comp.unix.i386. The people that do realize this appear to post into both groups. It is my hope that having the group comp.unix.sco will cut down on the unnecessary cross posting. In article <1990Mar26.213809.26999@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation, Boulder, CO >dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) suggests a new group comp.unix.sco. >> This group would be intended for postings regarding all products >> from Santa Cruz Operations; Including but not limited to SCO >> Xenix, SCO Unix, Xsight, (ODT) Open Desk Top, Lyrix, VP/ix, SCO >> Professional, etc. > >There are already newsgroups suitable for the intended purposes. Xenix- >specific discussions can go in comp.unix.xenix. UNIX-specific discussions >(referring to the AT&T-based V.3 product) can go in comp.unix.i386. Yes UNIX-specific discussions should continue to go to comp.unix.i386 when they apply to all 386 UNIX operating systems installations. But what about the other products I mentioned that can be used under SCO Xenix and SCO Unix. >Discussions which overlap the two (such as the common questions about >"should I buy Xenix or UNIX?") are most logically cross-posted to the two. No, this most logically belongs in comp.unix.sco and should not get a cross posting. SCO sells both products and this group is most likely to be aware of the differences. >The major difficulty I see with adding an SCO-specific group is that there >are many discussions which really apply to various vendors of 386 systems. >To the extent that the discussions bear on SCO UNIX, I expect we'd see a >lot of cross-posting, since their base code and VP/ix is based on the same >code used by the other vendors in that arena. Most discussions are for specific implementations of UNIX/Xenix, if a posting is regarding a SCO UNIX or Xenix installation it could be better served under comp.unix.sco. Rarely do you see a posting that does not mention what flavor of UNIX they have. Why is this? It is because it makes a difference. In the rarer case where it relates to ALL 386 UNIX installations then this would be valid time to cross post. >To the extent that SCO discussions apply to a variety of unrelated >products, I feel it's a bad precedent to set up new manufacturer-oriented >groups instead of discussing by topic...I'd really not want to see >comp.unix.isc, comp.unix.esix, comp.unix.intel, comp.unix.att, come out >of this. I do not want to see comp.unix.vpix, comp.unix.lyrix, comp.unix.xsight, comp.unix.odt, comp.unix.professional either. All these products (with the exception of ODT) will run on both SCO Xenix and SCO Unix. The only logical thing to do without this group is to cross post to comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386. >> ...there is confusion to where posting regarding >> SCO products should be posted. > >I haven't seen any confusion in comp.unix.i386. Perhaps it exists in >comp.unix.xenix for historical reasons, but that confusion will resolve >itself as SCO's UNIX product becomes better known. Moreover, that same >temporary confusion would exist with any new group. You have not seen any confusion because you are from Interactive Systems Corporation. The logical place to post for interactive 386 system is in comp.unix.i386. You do not offer a Xenix product. The confusion will grow as SCO sells more and more UNIX systems. In article <260EB8FF.1707@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) >>This group would be intended for postings regarding all products >>from Santa Cruz Operations; Including but not limited to SCO >>Xenix, SCO Unix, Xsight, (ODT) Open Desk Top, Lyrix, VP/ix, SCO >>Professional, etc. > >Xenix is dealt with in comp.unix.xenix Yes, this is clear. >Unix is dealt with in comp.unix.i386 A lot of people are not aware of this. If they are they will post to both comp.unix.i386 and comp.unix.xenix. >Lyrix is dealt with in comp.text Most probably would get 3 cross posting comp.text, comp.unix.xenix and if they understand comp.unix.i386 this will get a posting too. >ODT and Professional have not generated much traffic at all. >To make matters more confusing, two of the products you mentioned is not >even originally SCO's. Xsight (from Locus) and VP/ix (from one of SCO's >competitors, Interactive) are sold by many other vendors and are >sometimes even known by other names (AT&T Simultask comes to mind), but >questions about these products certainly extends beyond SCO users alone. I am not sure where you are suggesting to post ODT, Professional, Xsight or VP/ix questions. Let not have separate groups for all these products. You will not have to have a SCO license before you can join comp.unix.sco lets leave it open for all! >Just about anything someone would post to this group would have >to be cross-posted somewhere else in order to get the best hit. I disagree the best hit would be comp.unix.sco for SCO products. >>Most posting for SCO are currently being posted under >>unix.comp.xenix. This group is for posting regarding all Xenix >>systems not just SCO. SCO is currently shipping SCO Unix >>which is no longer called Xenix. > >However, SCO Xenix is still a popular product, and there sill continue >to be Xenix-specific postings for some time to come. There is some confusion to what I previously posted. I do not want the group comp.unix.xenix removed. This is still a popular product from many companies and because of the differences should have a separate group. >SCO Unix is far more similar to other comopany's 386 Unix implementations >than SCO would like you to think. Your signature says it better. >First they built the world's >standard...then they added >standards no-one else had--SCO ap ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Armbrust | uunet!pcssc!dma PC Software Systems | Phone: (813)365-1162 2121 Cornell Street | Sarasota, FL 34237 |
root@grumbly.UUCP (Superuser) (03/29/90)
In article <15292@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: ->Dick Dunn is exactly right, regardless of his employer. We do not need ->a separate SCO products newsgroup. There are a number of classic ->reasons for collecting articles in a newsgroup, but "because XYZ is the ->vendor" is not a good one. If SCO wants to start a support mailing list ->they can and should. In the meantime, topics should be grouped by ->functionality, not nameplate. Yes, crossposting is sometimes necessary ->and appropriate. That's what it was invented for! It happens all the ->time with all kinds of vendors' products. SCO is nothing special. -> ->Keep in mind that Interactive sells other things too, as do many other ->vendors. If comp.unix.interactive were proposed, I would vote against ->that too, and I would expect to see Dick Dunn's vote next to my own. ->(Unless the vote counter did an alpha sort :-) ) -> ->-- ->Psychoanalysis is the mental illness \\\ Tom Neff ->it purports to cure. -- Karl Kraus \\\ tneff@bfmn0.UU.NET -- /// - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > 0 0 Richard Ducoty ..uunet!grumbly!root > Capitola, Calif root@grumbly.com `
root@grumbly.UUCP (Superuser) (03/29/90)
In article <15@grumbly.UUCP> root@grumbly.UUCP (Superuser) writes: ->In article <15292@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: ->->Dick Dunn is exactly right, regardless of his employer. We do not need ->->a separate SCO products newsgroup. There are a number of classic ->->reasons for collecting articles in a newsgroup, but "because XYZ is the ->->vendor" is not a good one. If SCO wants to start a support mailing list ->->they can and should. In the meantime, topics should be grouped by ->->functionality, not nameplate. Yes, crossposting is sometimes necessary ->->and appropriate. That's what it was invented for! It happens all the ->->time with all kinds of vendors' products. SCO is nothing special. ->-> ->->Keep in mind that Interactive sells other things too, as do many other ->->vendors. If comp.unix.interactive were proposed, I would vote against ->->that too, and I would expect to see Dick Dunn's vote next to my own. ->->(Unless the vote counter did an alpha sort :-) ) Sorry if I duped. What about comp.unix.aix, c.u.aux, c.u.cray, c.u.ultrix, c.u.MICROPORT SCO has a bigger base than any of these, but thats not the reason people want a sco group. It is to cut down confusion - and there is confusion. You don't have to subscribe! SCO has no involvement with these groups - and it shouldn't, except to read it and answer questions when they can. That is a bad idea to have a company sponsered newsgroup/newsletter. rbd -- /// - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > 0 0 Richard Ducoty ..uunet!grumbly!root > Capitola, Calif root@grumbly.com `
eric@egsner.cirr.com (Eric Schnoebelen) (03/30/90)
For the record, I came out against comp.unix.sco when I first heard it suggested in alt.config. I said no then, and I still say *no* now. In article <16@grumbly.UUCP> root@grumbly.UUCP (Superuser) writes: - In article <15292@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: - ->Keep in mind that Interactive sells other things too, as do many other - ->vendors. If comp.unix.interactive were proposed, I would vote against - ->that too, and I would expect to see Dick Dunn's vote next to my own. - ->(Unless the vote counter did an alpha sort :-) ) - - What about comp.unix.aix, c.u.aux, c.u.cray, c.u.ultrix, c.u.MICROPORT What about them... Comp.unix.aix is devoted to the AIX variant of Unix across a variety of platforms, granted, mostly IBM, but at one point it was also to contain the OSF/1 stuff as well.. Comp.unix.aux is about Unix on the Apple platforms, and and that Unix is called A/UX. Comp.unix.ultrix is devoted to running Ultrix on a variety of platforms as well, granted, all DEC, but not all VAXen. Comp.unix.micrport should really have been named comp.unix.i286. My understanding is that it was created to get the Microport folks, who were running a System V/286 out of comp.unix.xenix. It seems that System V/AT had very little in common with Xenix. The group is almost dead now, the 386 traffic that used to be there is know taken up by c.u.i386. There is a common thread above, either common machine architecture or a common software architecture. I don't believe that an SCO group would really fit either of those two criteria. - SCO has a bigger base than any of these, but thats not the reason people - want a sco group. It is to cut down confusion - and there is confusion. Let's see, we could cut down the confusion even further by having a comp.unix.esix, comp.unix.intel, comp.unix.interactive, comp.unix.bsd, comp.unix.system5.... - You don't have to subscribe! No, but I will have to carry it.. (I feel a moral obligation to carry all groups for my downstream sites.) - SCO has no involvement with these groups - and it shouldn't, except to - read it and answer questions when they can. That is a bad idea to have - a company sponsered newsgroup/newsletter. Why not get official support for it from SCO, and then place it in the biz hierarchy? I still don't see the need for the group. SCO Unix is best covered in the group with other like Unixen, comp.unix.i386, SCO Xenix is best covered with Xenixen, in comp.unix.xenix. The other products can be covered in the respective closest group, with perhaps a cross post to one of the above, or perhaps posted only to one of the above.. Another note, anything that can run on SCO Unix can run on Interactive, Esix, or Intels Unix, since they all come from the same porting base. The same is true, at least at a source code level for the various Xenixen. I think by creating a separate SCO group, you would be cutting yourself off from valuable resources in i386 and xenix. Just another two-bits... -- Eric Schnoebelen eric@cirr.com schnoeb@convex.com ... Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.