Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!allegra!princeton!orsvax1!pyrnj!caip!cbmvax!grr
From: grr@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (George Robbins)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Wanted: net.micro.xenix
Message-ID: <40@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-Apr-86 08:43:59 EST
Article-I.D.: cbmvax.40
Posted: Wed Apr  2 08:43:59 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Apr-86 01:49:47 EST
References: <950@rlgvax.UUCP> <176@transys.UUCP> <696@anasazi.UUCP> <133@gilbbs.UUCP>
Reply-To: grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins)
Distribution: net
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 27
Keywords: Venix Xenix

>   Hold the phone!  Not everyone running desktop UNIX-clone systems is running
>Sys V!  Let's keep this general, folks!  There are over 100,000 Tandy systems
>running V7 or SYS III XENIX.  We deserve to participate too!
>
>tom keller >{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020

Look guys, if you can settle for mod.os.xenix, and can find someone willing to
serve as a moderator (or echoer) you should be able to get the group created
with a minimum amount of fuss.  There is also an arpanet xenix group that can
be gatewayed in, although it's alledgedly pretty low volume.

I know there are plenty of arguments against/for moderated groups, but if you
really want some private turf in the near term, go with the flow.  The OS/9
fanatics did manage to get a mod.os.os9 group created, although there hasn't
been much traffic on it.

Also, I would suggest keeping to a .xenix group.  If enough people screech for
a venix group, then let that be created.  I can't see any real need to split
a xenix group into V7/Sys III/Sys V lines unless the volume and confusion would
justify such action.

Me?  My little home computer runs a funny unix port called Zeus...

-- 
George Robbins - now working with,	uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|caip}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing	arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV
Commodore, Engineering Department	fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)