Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!seismo!rlgvax!mike
From: mike@rlgvax.UUCP (Mike Shaffer)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Wanted: net.micro.xenix
Message-ID: <964@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 31-Mar-86 08:45:17 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.964
Posted: Mon Mar 31 08:45:17 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Apr-86 02:28:21 EST
References: <950@rlgvax.UUCP>, <387@gargoyle.UUCP> <1349@homxb.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 43
Xref: watmath net.micro:14205 net.news.group:5317

> west@gargoyle.UUCP (Steve Westfall) writes:
> > In article <950@rlgvax.UUCP> dennis@rlgvax.UUCP (Dennis Bednar) writes:
> > >
> > >How about a new group "net.micro.xenix" for Xenix 286/System 5 for
> > >the PC/AT?  The problem with net.micro.pc, is that its full of
> > >stuff for pc/mdos machines.
> > 
> > It seems to me that Xenix is adequately covered in the several
> > groups where Unix is discussed (net.unix, net.unix.wizards, etc.).
> > (And even if there were to be a net.micro.xenix, why limit it to
> > Xenix on the PC/AT?  More people run Xenix on Tandy and Altos
> > machines than on AT's!)
> 
> I think that the UNIX world has become divided into two camps, with
> different interests, those that run UNIX on multi-user machines, and
> those that run UNIX on single-user or personal machines. (Where the
> definition of "single-user" is modified to include, say, 1-4 user machines).
> 
> I also think that many MS-DOS users who might be tempted to try UNIX,
> are put off by the level of discussion in net.unix and net.unix-wizards.
> 
> I would like to see a group "net.micro.unix" created (NOT net.micro.xenix).
> The groups charter would be for and about uses of all versions of UNIX
> on single user computers.  I think that the breadth of machines and
> UNIX ports which this group would justify its existance.  Some of the
> machines that I think fit into this category are: IBM PC/AT, Tandy,
> AT&T PC6300+, AT&T UNIX PC, DEC PRO.  Some of the UNIX ports that fit are:
> MS-Xenix (3 or SVR2), SCO-Xenix, Venix (2 or SVR2), AT&T OS-Merge,
> AT&T UNIX SVR2.
> 
> I am personally opposed to moderated groups, as I rarely have the time
> to dig thru the accumulations, although I am able to find time to read
> the news a few articles at a time, between compiles.  However,
> if the creation of this group hinges upon it being a moderated group
> (mod.micro.unix), I would be willing to moderate it.
> 
Now here is a man with a head on his shoulders. I agree that a net.micro.unix
would make sense as it would attract a broader range of discussions. Who knows
maybe someone like me will find an alternative to Xenix (hope springs eternal).

Mike Shaffer, CCI Reston Va.
Not sure how you get here but: ..rlgvax!mike
Not even sure how I got here.