Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab!tarpit!bilver!bill
From: bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Questions and Answers comp.unix.sco
Keywords: new group comp.unix.sco sco call vote
Message-ID: <719@bilver.UUCP>
Date: 2 May 90 17:46:54 GMT
References: <217@pcssc.UUCP>
Reply-To: bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion)
Organization: W. J. Vermillion, Winter Park, FL
Lines: 74

In article <217@pcssc.UUCP> dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes:
 
>Why comp.unix.sco instead of comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386?
....
>To  some it appears that this is enough groups and further division  would
>be  detrimental.  I and many others SCO users disagree and we feel that it
>would be beneficial to SCO users to have a  separate group.   (This  issue
>has been HOTLY debated.)
>
>The  intention of comp.unix.sco is to have one groups that will  encompass
>all of the above for SCO users.  In this new group discussions, questions,
>bug  reports,  ect.  regarding ALL SCO products can take place.  This  new
>group  is  neither  technical or non-technical, all posting  are  welcome.
>This  group  comp.unix.sco  can  be used for  simple  questions  or  heavy
>technical discussions.  This group is not limited to discussions regarding
>SCO  Operating  Systems (UNIX/XENIX).  Posting regarding SCO  applications
>are  welcome  in this group.  Even posting regarding SCO  applications  on
>other  venders operating systems may be posted here.  This group will  not
>be  owed or operated by SCO, rather this group is for and by the users  of
>SCO products.

The heart of the problem seems to be you want comp.unix.sco - so that you can
go there for all SCO products.  THis is NOT the way the net is set up.

comp.unix.????? is for OS discussion.  The ONLY reason the comp.unix.microport
is there and not comp.unix.i286, is that is was/is the only Unix for '286
machines.  In hindsight it probably would have been better for it to be
comp.unix.i286.

If you want to discuss SCO's Integra it should be in comp.dcom.databses.

If you want to discuss SCO's Lyrix, or their Word port, the would belong more
appropriately in comp.text.

SCO's ODT would probably be best in the comp.windows.

And whether you like it or not, the only way the hierarchy will work with all
products from one vendor in one place, is a biz.sco.

Remember that not all of those who use SCO's Xenix or Unix, use all (or even
ANY) of their other products.  I have a site that uses Olympus' Ultracalc
instead of SCO Professional (don't know where spreadsheets fit in the comp
hierarchy), SCC filePro instead of FoxBase or Integra, and Trajectory's LEX
as the word processer.  If I have a problem in the OS side, I don't want
to have to wade all their other products.

To make comp.unix.sco work properly then, it would have to be the following.

comp.unix.sco.os
comp.unix.sco.integra
comp.unix.soc.foxbase
(or put them both under comp.unix.sco.database)
comp.unix.sco.odt
comp.unix.sco.work
comp.unix.sco.lyrix.
(or put them both under comp.unix.sco.wp)


Whether it be SCO or anyother vendor, but all products by one vendor under
comp.unix.??? is wrong unless all the other products are OS related.

What you would like to see is done on bix and on Compuserve.  But the stucture
of news doens't adapt to that.  Thak God, I might add.

I did vote against it.

bill

p.s.  This just barfed on my system.  Followup should be to a newgroup
name not to poster.  Had to retreive from dead.article.  Is this your
news handler doing this, or you?
-- 
Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill
                      : bill@bilver.UUCP