Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ncar!ico!vail!rcd
From: rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Purpose of .i386 newsgroup
Summary: we're just high-visibility
Keywords: purpose basis
Message-ID: <16165@vail.ICO.ISC.COM>
Date: 6 Oct 89 00:39:55 GMT
References: <385@csense.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp, Boulder, CO
Lines: 53

bote@csense.UUCP (John Boteler) writes about the purpose of this
newsgroup...ostensibly for "Versions of Unix running on Intel 80386-based
boxes" yet
> ...the majority of articles refer to ISC UNIX. In fact, one guy
> told me the i386 nomer referred specifically to Interactive's
> product. 

First, no, i386 does not refer to Interactive's product.  Our version is
called 386/ix; that's a trademark of Interactive Systems Corporation.
The "i" in the newsgroup name is for "intel".

Interactive's 386/ix is related to other 386-based AT&T System V.3.2 UNIX
systems in that they all started from the same code base.  I suspect
there's more Interactive chat because our technical staff is active here.

> Am I wrong, along with my newsgroups file, or is there simply
> no interest in any other OS running on Intel 80386 boxes in this 
> newsgroup?

There will be discussions of AIX for the 386-based PS/2's (along with a
different AIX for the RT PC and a promised AIX for the 370:-) in
comp.unix.aix.  There is some discussion of SCO's Xenix in comp.unix.xenix.
The discussion about SCO tends to split, although I think we may see more
of them here now that Sys V UNIX and Xenix characteristics have been
merged (in V.3.2).

Also, Dan Mocsny wrote:

> Maybe the other ones simply work as advertised, so nobody has anything
> to say about them? :-)

We'll get you for that, Dan!  Quick, everybody from *.isc.com over to
rec.bicycles!  Start posting pro-automobile articles...make them real
flames, and put "Followup-To: rec.auto"!

Seriously, I think that one of the things that makes for more ISC-related
discussion is that, unlike AT&T or IBM, we don't sell hardware.  That
probably results in more questions about "how do I make this magic card
work?" or "will this card work?"  AT&T, for example, sells certain hard-
ware...they *must* focus on that hardware.  (It's a disaster if their
software doesn't work with their hardware; it's a lot less serious if it
doesn't work with some random piece from another mfgr.)  We don't have the
luxury of saying, "well, it works with ISC hardware" because there isn't
any.  This isn't to say anything negative about AT&T; their situation is
just less required to be open.

(I also like to think it's because we've got more customers doing more
interesting and different things.:-)
-- 
+---------+     Dick Dunn    rcd@ico.isc.com    ico!rcd      (303)449-2870
| In this |         4th annual MadHatterDay [10/6/89]:
|  style  |            A Thousand Points of Madness
|__10/6___|