Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pcssc!dma From: dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: Come on, stop blaming/flaming SCO! Message-ID: <230@pcssc.UUCP> Date: 4 May 90 22:22:52 GMT References: <216@pcssc.UUCP> <1990Apr26.173835.26100@ico.isc.com> <544@isipc.UUCP> <839@visenix.UUCP> <1990Apr30.233248.24317@ico.isc.com> <218@pcssc.UUCP> <6005@scolex.sco.COM> <2237@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <229@pcssc.UUCP> <376@van-bc.UUCP> Reply-To: dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) Followup-To: comp.unix.i386 Organization: PC Software Systems Corp. Lines: 68 In article <376@van-bc.UUCP> jtc@van-bc.UUCP (J.T. Conklin) writes: >>If the group comp.unix.sco >>passes then we will be able to add sub-groups with in this group if >>there is a call for this. comp.unix.sco.lyrix I beleive would make >>more sense then comp.unix.i386.apps.lyrix. > >If a Unix applications group is created, you can be assured that we >would tie it to a particular software/hardware platform. In fact, it >probably shouldn't even be tied to operating system! It makes much >more sense to separate it by application type. > > comp.applications.text-processing > comp.applications.databases > comp.applications.office-automation It does not make sense to tie applications groups to specific software/hardware platforms. Most applications don't care what platform they run on as long as it is a true Unix platform. comp.applications.text-processing need to be tied at least to the OS. (i.e. comp.unix.applications.text-processing). But this is still too broad. Does anyone know how many different text-processing apps run under UNIX? Even if we could convince users with a lyrix question to post to comp.unix.applications.text-processing do you think a person with expertise with lyrix would spend the time to read through these postings about all these different text processor? Do you think SCO is unreasonable because they don't want to either? Besides non-technical users do not want to read about all the different word processors, they want to read about THEIR word processor. There may be an argument for comp.unix.lyrix rather then comp.unix.sco.lyrix but this is a specific product developed and marketted by SCO. If this was the only specific product sold by SCO then comp.unix.lyrix may be a better choice, but SCO has many unique products and are adding more all the time. (Lyrix, ODT, Office Portfolio, ect). Yes open-descktop is a SCO only product. There would not be enought trafic for lyrix to have it own group. There would not be enough for ODT, Office Portfolio, Manager, ect. either. There would be enought for all these to be combined into comp.unix.sco and if further sub-divission is needed it can then be added. >I invite you to describe the significant differences between: > > Xsight MIT X Consortium X11R3 > Motif OSF/Motif > Ingres RTI Ingres > TCP/IP TCP/IP > NFS NFS > >Separating the SCO users of these products fragment them the other >users on the network. They many products that they remarket with 'added function' and they have products that remarket unchanged. Depending on the 'degree of added function' it may be more desirable to group these with other 'nearly identical' products. Comp.unix.sco does not prevent us from from doing this. > There is a hugenormous abundance of expertise >on the net, but it can only be shared if we cooperate. And this hugenormous abundance of expertise is almost impossible for a non-expert to get at. What is so wrong with making it a little easier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Armbrust | uunet!pcssc!dma PC Software Systems | Phone: (813)365-1162 2121 Cornell Street | Sarasota, FL 34237 |