Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6669 comp.sys.att:11025 news.groups:26060 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!shelby!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!sialis!quad!dts From: dts@quad.sialis.com (David Sandberg) Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att,news.groups Subject: Re: comp.sys.3b1.*? Message-ID: <638@quad.sialis.com> Date: 2 Dec 90 19:21:29 GMT References: <11686@alice.att.com> <36388@cup.portal.com> Organization: Quadric Systems, Richfield MN Lines: 24 In article mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu writes: >I do feel strongly about the name; let's try: > comp.sys.att.3b1 (since we already have comp.sys.att) and I don't greatly dislike this, but I like comp.sys.3b1 better. As someone else said, AT&T orphaned this machine... most of the support for it now comes from the group itself, rather than from the original company (with the exception of a few persons from thereabouts who deserve to be repeatedly patted on the back for their efforts). Also, the group is meant to cover machines from more manufacturers than just AT&T (the fabled Miniframe, for one example). > comp.sources.unix.3b1 (since we already have c.s.unix) You'd get a "no" on that one from me - it would be contrary to all existing practice. There are sources groups for various UNIX machines already, but not one of them is grouped underneath comp.sources.unix. I say we stick with comp.sources.3b1. -- \\ David Sandberg \ ,=, ,=, \\ // dts@quad.sialis.com / | |uadric `=,ystems // \\ uunet!umn-cs!sialis!quad!dts \ `=\ `=' \\