Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cbdkc1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!daleske
From: daleske@cbdkc1.UUCP ( John Daleske x4335 3E296 RAA)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.news.group,net.micro.6809
Subject: Re: Can the OS-9 traffic move out of net.micro.68K?
Message-ID: <1213@cbdkc1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Nov-85 10:33:07 EST
Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.1213
Posted: Thu Nov 14 10:33:07 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Nov-85 04:59:58 EST
References: <5100002@umn-cs.UUCP> <257@l5.uucp>
Reply-To: daleske@dkc1.UUCP ( John Daleske x4335 3E296 RAA)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 43
Xref: watmath net.micro.68k:1303 net.news.group:4524 net.micro.6809:595

In article <257@l5.uucp> gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>Like the Mormons of eld, the OS-9 contingent keeps finding new homes
>on the Usenet and then being chased out.  I'd like to chase them out
>of net.micro.68k.  OS-9 doesn't have a lot to do with 68k's; you might
>as well post Unix-related messages in net.micro.68k too, right?
>
>I'd suggest "net.micro" since it seems to be a micro operating system
>and runs on many machines.
>
>You are welcome to petition for your own newsgroup, if you want.
>(net.micro.os-9?)  There certainly seems to be "enough traffic clogging
>existing groups" to warrant one.
----------------------
This response is intended to first help clear the mis-conception about
OS-9.

OS-9 currently has implementations on two microprocessors: 6809 & 68xxx.
Why would you want to "chase out" a discussion directly relating to an
operating system for the 68k?  Why, especially, when the OS may prove to
be just what an application of yours may need?  Considering that OS-9 has
been licensed for OVER one million installations it certainly is not a
fly-by-night nor insignificant operating system (I understand this figure
is around two to three times the number of UNIX licenses).  For medium and
small applications OS-9 has a LOT over UNIX!

On the other hand, a centralized discussion of OS-9 would likely be a
benefit.  I read net.micro.68k AND net.micro.6809 primarily for OS-9
discussions.  Since OS-9 may possibly extend to other microprocessors
(substitute "likely the 32xxx") distributing the discussion among
multiple newsgroups does seem rediculous.  Similarly, discussions of
other operating systems should be "chased out".  UNIX on 68k systems
should ONLY be discussed in net.micro.unix, right?  :-)

Actually, the group distinction of net.unix and net.unix-wizards
should be changed to net.os.unix and another group net.os.os9 should
be established.  Then we could also have net.os.msdos, net.os.cpm (?
any need any more?), net.os.vms, etc.  Why not start out with net.os
and see which other groups are needed?

John Daleske
..cbosgd!cbdkc1!daleske
NOTE:  No one else is responsible for these thoughts.  Don't even think
that my employers would want to support them!