Xref: utzoo news.groups:11824 comp.sys.ibm.pc:33821 comp.windows.ms:883
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!caromero
From: caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: CALL for DISCUSSION: comp.sys.os2
Keywords: OS2, newgroup, discussion , vote
Message-ID: <10099@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 27 Aug 89 23:49:51 GMT
References: <2194@dlvax2.datlog.co.uk> <1191@tukki.jyu.fi> <85@peyote.cactus.org>
Reply-To: caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 18

In article <85@peyote.cactus.org> mosley@peyote.cactus.org (Bob Mosley III) writes:
>In article <1191@tukki.jyu.fi>, tarvaine@tukki.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>> In article <2194@dlvax2.datlog.co.uk> mor@datlog.co.uk ( Mike O'Reilly ) writes:
>> >This is a CALL for DISCUSSION of "comp.sys.os2" and related newsgroups.
>> 
>> It should be "comp.os.os2".
>"comp.os2" be acceptable? How is the os/9 group handled?

It's comp.os.os9, just like it should be...

Really, how much traffic would there be in a comp.os.os2 group that
couldn't be handled in comp.sys.ibm.pc?  I don't really care one way or
another about whether the group gets created-- I just don't recall
seeing that much about OS/2 in comp.sys.ibm.pc at all.  Maybe the
Windows group's been getting more traffic...  has there really been
enough to warrant the new group?

-Antonio Romero             romero@confidence.princeton.edu