Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!ubvax!vix From: vix@ubvax.UB.Com (Paul Vixie) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.xenix,comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: comp.unix.unix-at Intro and Charter (long) Message-ID: <3103@ubvax.UB.Com> Date: Sat, 24-Oct-87 19:06:04 EST Article-I.D.: ubvax.3103 Posted: Sat Oct 24 19:06:04 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 26-Oct-87 05:45:54 EST References: <152@uwspan.UUCP> Reply-To: vix@ubvax.UUCP (Paul Vixie) Organization: Vixie Enterprises Lines: 54 Keywords: microport newsgroup created soon unix-at Summary: comp.unix.unix-at is a bad name for this group. arguments included. Xref: mnetor news.groups:1795 comp.unix.xenix:1033 comp.sys.ibm.pc:9399 In article <152@uwspan.UUCP> plocher@uwspan.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: >[...] it >was brought to my attention that using the name of a single distributer >(Microport) to describe a group devoted to the product of many other >distributers (Bell Tech, Intel, Interactive Systems...) was not a Good >Thing to do. Because of this, the name was changed to: > > comp.unix.unix-at > >[...] Most of the 286 and >386 systems out there use the AT (I-BUS) for add on cards, so it was felt >that this name was fitting. John, I know you are trying to do a Good Thing, and I expect to benefit from this group. However, your assumption there at the end of what I've quoted from you article just Isn't Correct. There are several 386 machines I can think of that will run "UNIX System V/386" as ported by ISC for Intel and AT&T, that either use the "IBM PC/XT/AT" as an I-O bus only, or do not use it at all. Recent announcements from Compaq, AST Research, and even IBM will bear this out. The Texas Instruments 386 machine (trade name unknown, sorry TI!) also has its own bus. You've established that it ought not to be named after any single distributor; we've all more-or-less assumed that it there does need to be a group seperate from the comp.unix.sysv group for discussions about the V/386 version (which AT&T is very definitely treating specially and apart from its other offerings). I suggest that comp.unix.xenix can remain, for a while at least, until it is finally merged into the V/386 port (which I believe Microsoft/SCO/whomever are probably working on even as you read this). I'm not sure where to put the Microport/286 release, since it is actually a very seperate product from the V/386 product that is currently looming. However, the solution to this part of it may come from what I'm about to suggest for the V/386: comp.unix.sysv.386 (yeah, yeah, okay, it's ugly. However, it makes room for:) comp.unix.sysv.286 (which would be harder to mistake than anything else I've seen suggested.) So, how about: comp.unix.xenix leave it alone comp.unix.sysv.286 for uPort 286, Bell Tech 286, ??? comp.unix.sysv.386 for "UNIX System V/386" from all sources Disclaimer: I've used a lot of trademarks. They are all, hopefully, obvious. -- Paul Vixie Consultant Work: 408-562-7798 vix@ubvax.ub.com Ungermann-Bass Home: 415-647-7023 ames!pyramid!ubvax!vix Santa Clara, CA <>