Xref: utzoo comp.unix.i386:4785 news.groups:20253 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!milano!uudell!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386,news.groups Subject: comp.unix[.i386].apps (Re: Come on, stop blaming/flaming SCO!) Message-ID: Date: 4 May 90 19:19:42 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> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 9 In article <2237@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: > There are some very good arguments for comp.unix.i386.apps... Another good group, should this be done as well as, or in spite of comp.unix.apps? I can think of good arguments either way. most of them come down to the relative availability of V/386 apps and non-V/386 apps (presumably including Xenix apps, as well as any BSD ones). Since I'm not familiar with the majority of the UNIX applications market, I'll let someone else do the analysis... -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? @FIN Commercial solicitation *is* accepted by email to this address.