Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!ico!ism.isc.com!emisle!dvb
From: dvb@emisle.uucp (David Van Beveren)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: X386 on AT&T lockup problem
Message-ID: <1991Apr20.062159.7333@emisle.uucp>
Date: 20 Apr 91 06:21:59 GMT
References: <1991Apr12.122901.379@virtech.uucp> <1991Apr14.022422.6177@coyote.datalog.com>
Reply-To: dvb@emisle.UUCP (David Van Beveren)
Organization: Emerald Isle Systems, Ltd. Agoura Hills, CA
Lines: 28

In article <1991Apr14.022422.6177@coyote.datalog.com> ejm@coyote.datalog.com (E.J. McKernan) writes:
>In article <1991Apr12.122901.379@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
>>
>>The amount of traffic related to X386 is picking up steadily and will
>>probably consume this newsgroup.  So, what do you think about putting
>>together a separate newsgroup: comp.unix.sysv386.x386 or comp.windows.x.x386
>>which is dedicated to this product?
>>
>>What do you think?
>
>Just what the doctor ordered!
>
>Comp.windows.x.x386 sounds like the name to go with.
>

How about a little more general:
            comp.windows.x.sysv386.
X386 is not the only sysv386 x-windows product. (Just the best :^) ) And there
are some issues that relate to more than X386.

That would take a lot of traffic from this group, and some from comp.windows.x. 
I am in favor of such a move.


-- 
David Van Beveren                           INTERNET: emisle!dvb@ism.isc.com
EIS ltd. Professional Software Services     UUCP:   ..uunet!emisle!dvb
voice: (818) 587-1247