Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!crdgw1!ge-dab!tarpit!bilver!bill From: bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: CALL FOR LOCAL DISCUSSION Revision 1: Split the c.s.a group more? Message-ID: <1235@bilver.UUCP> Date: 25 Oct 90 14:54:57 GMT References: <2151@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> Reply-To: bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL Lines: 40 In article <2151@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >In <591@DIALix.oz.au>, bernie@DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) writes: >> >>All those UNIX readers, who wouldn't give Amiga (that toy? ;-) a >>second look, will be confronted with a query as to whether they want >>to subscribe to comp.UNIX.amiga. They never looked inside c.s.a, or >>gave up because of the volume. >> >>Given the alternative comp.sys.AMIGA.unix, which do you they're more >>likely to subscribe to? (Ignore any penchant for Amigas, it's >>difficult, I know.) > >I strongly agree with this. As a non Amiga user, just trying to keep my system running for all users, I'd like to make this observation. Most of the Unix hierarchy doesn't really care about what machines the system runs on, because most implementation are close. THere are sub-groups for machine dependant variation, eg sysv386, etc, but a good majority of the Unix threads don't fit this category, and comp.unix.amiga should only be used for the system dependant categories. Don't worry about who thinks what of your "toy" (as referenced in line 1). I have one client who has a Unix system based on a Z8000 chip with a whopping 512K of RAM, that is running his business and 5 terminals. An Amiga is much more powerful than that. I just want to see the main group split so you don't keep giving my system fits with its "HUGE DIRETORY" error messages (as I have mentioned before). Don't worry about the Unix until it is out. Worry about getting this group organized first. bill -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP