Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6420 comp.sys.att:10813 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!quick!cctb!randy From: randy@cctb.wa.com (Randy Orrison) Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att Subject: Re: comp.sys.3b1? Message-ID: Date: 12 Nov 90 17:39:03 GMT References: <1990Nov3.045636.12735@cs.ucla.edu> <315@sphere.UUCP> <35841@cup.portal.com> Organization: Chemical Computer Thinking Battery, Redmond, WA Lines: 36 In article <35841@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: | The above, coupled with John's other anecdotes, presents a VERY compelling | case to initiate inquiry into forming a comp.sys.unix-pc.* hierarchy. I | sincerely wish I could devote the time myself, but I've taken on so many | other activities that I have no additional "free" time. I would definitely | vote "YES" if someone sends out a formal request to form the newsgroup. I also agree that moving into the comp heirarchy is a good idea, though I do prefer the name comp.sys.3b1.xxx, since we have enough people confusing us with PCs running unix. I'm not worried that anyone will try to exclude discussions of 7300s, any more than we currently exclude CT MiniFrames and our other cousins. So, what groups do we want? comp.sys.3b1 comp.sources.3b1 or comp.sys.3b1.general comp.sys.3b1.uucp comp.sys.3b1.bugs comp.sys.3b1.sources The first set will probably be easier to pass, and there really isn't a lot of traffic on the uucp and bugs groups. How about it? Anyone willing to read the guidelines and do this right? -randy -- Randy Orrison Chemical Computer Thinking Battery uunet!microsoft!cctb!randy randy@cctb.wa.com "Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much, better."