Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:10731 unix-pc.general:6349
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!fernwood!portal!cup.portal.com!thad
From: thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,unix-pc.general
Subject: Re: Monthly posting about Unix-PC network
Message-ID: <35534@cup.portal.com>
Date: 3 Nov 90 10:18:15 GMT
References: <1990Nov1.080516.14051@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
  <1990Nov3.045636.12735@cs.ucla.edu>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 70

kirkaas@makaha.cs.ucla.edu (paul kirkaas) in <1990Nov3.045636.12735@cs.ucla.edu
>
writes (re: the 3B1 mailing list(s)):

	Well, this is a nice idea, but the only group I am really exited about
	here is unix-pc.sources --- and that's the group I was told was too
	big to forward via email.  UCLA is a pretty big school and we get all
	the newsgroups I've ever heard of; but the local net administration
	looked into the unix-pc newsgroups and said it was pretty tough for
	them to get a feed here.

	If my understanding is correct, the feed would be essentially
	automatic if the unix-pc newsgroup were under another pre-existing
	hierarchy.

	Why not just move the whole unix-pc tree under comp.sys.unix-pc, which
	is clearly where it belonged in the first place?  I don't know much
	about how the net works, but it seems to me that is obvious and
	correct solution.  This would also allow us to separate out
	discussions of 3b1's and 3b2's and 6386's, which have nothing really
	to do with each other.

	Comments?

Personally, I'd like to see "comp.sys.unix-pc.*" in the mainstream newsgroups!
But, as has been posted and (re-)hashed many times, there is NO problem getting
a direct feed (of the unix-pc.* hierarchy) right into your own 3B1 (assuming
you don't mind a (possibly) long-distance phone call).

As far as UCLA administration asserting unix-pc.* is too big to forward via
e-mail, bushwa!  How do you think much of the stuff is presently propagated?
Surely not by carrier pigeon!  :-)

It's my observation and assertion the comp.sys.att and unix-pc.* newsgroups
are frequented by responsible persons and there simply aren't any blatant
cross-posting abuses.

Re: "... allow us to separate out discussions of 3b1's and 3b2's and 6386's,
which have nothing really to do with each other"  I disagree.  Except for some
specific hardware and/or assembly language issues, all these systems running
UNIX share many of the same problems and solutions, and it's definitely a
win-win situation sharing our experiences and discussions.

As the (present) president of the Silicon Valley AT&T UNIX Users' Group, it's
clear from the membership info surveys that interest in all these systems is
shared by the members though, for practical (and financial) reasons most of
us own 3B1 systems as personal home systems.  As but one example in support of
this assertion, our October 1990 meeting featured demos and talks by:

	Tyan Computer of Sunnyvale CA, showing their 80486 system with SVR4
	and X11R4.  Tyan also supplied the door prizes that evening, with a
	COMPLETE set of SVR4 manuals and documentation going to one lucky
	attendee, and

	UNISYS/NCG (formerly Convergent Technologies (also the mfr for AT&T
	of the 3B1)) of San Jose CA showing their 68040 SVR3.2 with X11R4.
	Software running on the 3B1 (68010), for example, can be simply
	copied to that Model 4040 using tape or Ethernet and continue to
	run (that Model 4040 is expected to officially debut on or about
	Nov.21 per my notes from that meeting).

Many members of the users' group own 3B2 and 6386 systems, and we often "borrow
"
them for our booths at the West Coast Computer Faire, DB-EXPO, etc.

As we move more into SVR4, I believe it's even more important to maintain the
cohesiveness of the present newsgroups and to NOT split them.  Again, many of
the issues discussed (printers, uucp, C, etc.) are common to all our systems.

Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]