Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6712 comp.sys.att:11056 news.groups:26138 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!uwm.edu!bionet!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!floyd From: floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att,news.groups Subject: Re: comp.sys.3b1.*? Message-ID: <1990Dec4.054818.8170@ims.alaska.edu> Date: 4 Dec 90 05:48:18 GMT References: <36388@cup.portal.com> <638@quad.sialis.com> Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science Lines: 52 In article <638@quad.sialis.com> dts@quad.sialis.com (David Sandberg) writes: >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). This line of thought keeps popping up. I can't agree at all. Does anyone really expect AT&T or any other manufacturer to continue making or supporting every product they introduce? That is a silly idea. And in fact they have provided quite a bit more than many companies provide on their current line! There have been updates and info made available since the model was dropped. Very unusual. Very nice, too. Actually most of us would never have been able to afford a UNIX box anywhere near this nice if it wasn't for AT&T's policies (or lack of market savey...). I bear no ill feelings about AT&T handling of the model. >Also, the group is meant to cover machines from >more manufacturers than just AT&T (the fabled Miniframe, for one >example). This is an excellent point. > >> 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. This I agree with. Stick with comp.sources.3b1, but for the right reasons. Leave the feelings about AT&T out of it. Floyd (I feel obliged to point out that I work for the only "other" regulated long distance carrier in the US, and that may very well bias my thoughts. AT&T and Alascom do NOT compete with each other.) -- Floyd L. Davidson floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu Salcha, AK 99714 paycheck connection to Alascom, Inc. When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry.