Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!microsoft!robertfe
From: robertfe@microsoft.UUCP (Robert Ferguson 2/1073)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.xenix,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: comp.unix.unix-at Intro and Charter (long)
Message-ID: <882@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Oct-87 12:57:24 EST
Article-I.D.: microsof.882
Posted: Fri Oct 23 12:57:24 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Oct-87 16:53:46 EST
References: <152@uwspan.UUCP>
Reply-To: robertfe@microsoft.UUCP (Robert Ferguson)
Organization: Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA
Lines: 20
Keywords: microport newsgroup unix-at
Summary: Please reconsider the name.
Xref: mnetor news.groups:1782 comp.unix.xenix:1022 comp.sys.ibm.pc:9353


I seem to recall that XENIX runs on an "AT". We just finished working on
the 2.2.3 update release for that machine.

"Comp.unix.unix-at" is a very, very bad way to set this up. The logical
consequence of the division you propose is that the XENIX group should
be moved to in part to "Comp.unix.unix-at.xenix", and that we should
create "Comp.unix.unix-386.xenix", "Comp.unix.unix-ps/2.xenix", and so on,
ad nauseum.

Small-scale architectural differences are not the way to sort this out. 
May I suggest that you consider creating comp.unix.micro, comp.unix.micro.intel,
and comp.unix.micro.xenix?

Please pick another name. I fear that comp.unix.unix-at will confuse the 
issue and may not solve any of the problems that you set out to address. 

----------
Rob Ferguson						XENIX Development Staff
microsoft!robertfe						Microsoft Corp.