Xref: utzoo news.groups:26314 comp.sys.att:11115 unix-pc.general:6798
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.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: <1990Dec7.211658.21671@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Date: 7 Dec 90 21:16:58 GMT
References: <459@hico2.UUCP> <1990Dec6.092904.2028@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1990Dec7.174855.23824@ccad.uiowa.edu>
Sender: news@nntp-server.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 15
Nntp-Posting-Host: juno.caltech.edu

In article <1990Dec7.174855.23824@ccad.uiowa.edu> emcguire@ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire) writes:
>You don't think the machine is very important, and you conclude that it
>ought therefore to be correspondingly lower in the hierarchy?

Not quite.  The 3b1 is a single machine for all practical purposes.  It
is not a line of related computers.  It hasn't been produced for years.
It's unlikely to ever have a successor.  This makes it fundamentally
different from, say, a Mac, NeXT, or Amiga.

The 3b1 is a particular AT&T machine.  The question is why is the 3b1 so
very important that is should be place at the top of the hierarchy, rather
than under comp.sys.att?  Why bother to have a heirarchy at all if every
individual machine can go directly under comp.sys?

Andy Fyfe					andy@cs.caltech.edu