Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6863 comp.sys.att:11197 news.groups:26561
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!iuvax!copper!templon
From: templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att,news.groups
Subject: Re: Removal of unix-pc groups
Message-ID: <78330@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: 15 Dec 90 16:02:12 GMT
References: <58455@becker.UUCP> <27601FD3.6C20@tct.uucp> <1990Dec9.021006.1336@axis.dsg.ti.com> <60752@becker.UUCP>
Sender: news@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington IN.
Lines: 42

In article <60752@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes:

>	The problem seems to be that the unix-pc will
>	gradually become obsolete even to many of its
[...]
>	I don't think going to hide in comp. will solve
>	anything - rather it would merely provide a context
>	for the stuff of the unix-pc hierarchy to be

I thought the reason for the move to comp was to solve the problem with the
group distribution completeness (for sites that do get the group) and to
make people at sites that refuse to carry alternate groups have access to
the 'UNIXPC' discussion.  True enough these people might be able to get
the groups if they were willing to spend the bucks on long-distance phone
calls, but why not make it more convenient?

I don't think anybody thought they would 'save' the machine from obsolesence
by putting its newsgroup in comp.

>	or something, I'd like to point out that the
>	unix-pc phenomenon has been remarkable in some
>	very important ways, perhaps uniquely. In being
>	able to support at a very high and progressive
>	level an obsoleted machine, a standard has been
>	set which can be applied in many other contexts.
>	This has such value that it ought to endure beyond
>	the life of the system which it started with.
>	Perhap the move to comp. has this possibility,
>	but it needs to be made more explicit or its
>	importance may be forgotten, which would be
>	tragic...

I think what you are trying to say here (correct me please if I am wrong!!)
is that having our own hierarchy is making the group stronger.  This might
be true.  I think it has to be weighed against the added strength that comes
from having more people in the club.  Check out discussions on
comp.sys.nsc.32k if you want an example of a tight-knit, high-standards
group of people dedicated to a machine (at least this was the case 6 months
ago) in the comp hierarchy.


					Jeff