Xref: utzoo comp.unix.i386:5352 comp.unix.microport:4130 comp.unix.xenix:11748
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!wb3ffv!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake
From: shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.microport,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Renaming/Combining of Microport and Xenix groups? (was: Re: I will not honor comp.unix.sco)
Summary: Leave .xenix alone, but microport could be named
Message-ID: <34@raysnec.UUCP>
Date: 25 May 90 18:29:35 GMT
References: <37322@cci632.UUCP>
Reply-To: shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake)
Followup-To: comp.unix.i386
Distribution: na
Organization: IRS - ACI Project Office
Lines: 15

I could easily support a change of c.u.microport to c.u.i286, but it 
makes little sense to integrate c.u.xenix into c.u.i286. The Xenix/286
and Xenix/386 implementations are quite similar in many respects, but
differ significantly from their c.u.ix86 counterparts.

Issues regarding Microport's 386 offerings properly belong in c.u.i386,
while c.u.i286 easily cover AT&T's Simultask 286 offered on the 6300 PLUS.
I know, the latter is not familiar to many of you but trust me that its
UNIX and Merge implementations were notably better than Microport's,
though regretably they did not run on standard AT platforms.

On a somewhat different track, Microport's return is probably of most
value to those currently running their earlier offerings. What with the
current UNIX 386 offerings from Interactive, SCO and AT&T (and others)
Microport's return is a back-page story.