Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6500 comp.sys.att:10900
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!mintaka!mit-eddie!andante!alice!wilber
From: wilber@alice.att.com (Bob Wilber)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.sys.3b1
Message-ID: <11644@alice.att.com>
Date: 20 Nov 90 00:29:34 GMT
Reply-To: wilber@homxb.att.com
Organization: AT&T, Bell Labs
Lines: 22

I don't see much point in creating comp.sys.3b1 unless it *replaces*
unix-pc.*.

If unix-pc stays around then:

1.  1/4 of the posts will go only to unix-pc.*, 1/4 will go only to
    comp.sys.3b1, and 1/2 will be cross posted to both.  Just like the
    current situation with respect to comp.sys.att.

2.  People will continue to cross post Intel articles to unix-pc.*.

3.  If some sort of automatic gate-way scheme is used to try to alleviate
    problem 1, then all those Intel posts will wind up in comp.sys.3b1 too.

So we won't have gained a heck of a lot.  Is it really the case that people
who have managed to get their hands on the elusive unix-pc.* hierarchy
will find it so difficult to instead get a single main hierarchy newsgroup?
(And no, you aren't forced to get a "full news feed" just because you want
one group.)

Bob Wilber