Xref: utzoo news.groups:26305 comp.sys.att:11113 unix-pc.general:6788
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!ns-mx!ccad.uiowa.edu!emcguire
From: emcguire@ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire)
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: <1990Dec7.174855.23824@ccad.uiowa.edu>
Date: 7 Dec 90 17:48:55 GMT
References: <459@hico2.UUCP> <1990Dec6.092904.2028@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Organization: CAD-Research, U. of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Lines: 22

In article <1990Dec6.092904.2028@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
andy@cs.caltech.edu (Andy Fyfe) writes:

     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".

You don't think the machine is very important, and you conclude that it
ought therefore to be correspondingly lower in the hierarchy?

We're not hiring someone here, we're naming a newsgroup.  We don't
choose hierarchy levels in comp.sys based on how prestigious the
machine is.  All that is needed is to be relevant to comp.sys and to
have sufficient traffic to justify a group.

If the group dies in a few years, it'll be removed.  Simple as that.
-- 
peace.  -- Ed
"Over here, Bones!  This man's dying!"
"Damn it, Jim!  I'm a doctor, not a . . .  What did you say?"