Xref: utzoo news.groups:26260 comp.sys.att:11100 unix-pc.general:6766
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news
From: andy@cs.caltech.edu (Andy Fyfe)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.att,unix-pc.general
Subject: Re: NO on comp.sys.att.3b1 (yes on comp.sys.3b1)
Keywords: unix-pc 3b1 7300 miniframe safari s4 convergent newsgroups
Message-ID: <1990Dec6.092904.2028@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 90 09:29:04 GMT
References: <459@hico2.UUCP>
Sender: news@nntp-server.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 17
Nntp-Posting-Host: juno.caltech.edu

Personally, I find it incongruous that we can have a consensus that
the newsgroup does not belong under comp.sys.att, because the "att" is
inappropriate, yet be virtually unanimously agreed that "3b1" is the
best name for the group -- an AT&T designation for the machine.

It may be that Convergent manufactured the machines for AT&T.  So
why not "comp.sys.convergent.s4"?  It's also true that AT&T no longer
sells the beast, and support is not ideal.  These things happen --
no machine is likely to be produced and supported forever.  So why not
"comp.sys.orphans.3b1"?

The 3b1 is in most ways a unique machine.  With time it will fade away
and disappear -- it is, realistically, the first and last of its line.
Does a single, particular machine (equivalent systems notwithstanding)
really belong at the top of the comp.sys hierarchy?  I'd say "no".

Andy Fyfe					andy@cs.caltech.edu