Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6418 comp.sys.att:10807
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!giza.cis.ohio-state.edu!manson
From: manson@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Manson)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: comp.sys.3b1? (was Re: Monthly posting about Unix-PC networ
Summary: comp.sys.3b1.whatever sounds better...
Message-ID: <85854@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 12 Nov 90 15:49:17 GMT
References: <1990Nov3.045636.12735@cs.ucla.edu> <315@sphere.UUCP> <35841@cup.portal.com>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Followup-To: unix-pc.general
Organization: Ohio State Computer Science
Lines: 18

In article <35841@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes:
>case to initiate inquiry into forming a comp.sys.unix-pc.* hierarchy.  I

I don't have any arguments for or against moving the groups to
something under comp.sys, but I do want to strongly suggest NOT using
the name "unix-pc" in the group. comp.sys.3b1 sounds much better, and
won't confuse neophytes into posting questions about running Unix on
an IBM-PC thingy.

I would also encourage giving some thought into renaming the hierarchy
to something besides unix-pc.*, if the consensus turns out to be to
keep the current arrangement. Not that it's a big deal seeing an
occasional post about "can I boot both DOS and Unix on my 286 box",
but it is annoying and could be avoided. (Admittedly, I really
wouldn't have thought that someone would confuse "unix-pc" to mean
Unix running on IBM-PCs, but now that we know...)
						Bob
manson@cis.ohio-state.edu