Xref: utzoo news.groups:19158 comp.unix.i386:3864 comp.unix.xenix:10828 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!texbell!vector!egsner!eric From: eric@egsner.cirr.com (Eric Schnoebelen) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.xenix Subject: Re: New group comp.unix.sco Message-ID: <1990Mar29.165937.25154@egsner.cirr.com> Date: 29 Mar 90 16:59:37 GMT References: <15292@bfmny0.UU.NET> <15@grumbly.UUCP> <16@grumbly.UUCP> Organization: Central Iowa (Model) Railroad, Dallas, Tx. Lines: 69 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.