Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!itsgw!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.xenix,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: comp.unix.unix-at Intro and Charter (long)
Message-ID: <7721@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Oct-87 13:37:03 EST
Article-I.D.: steinmet.7721
Posted: Wed Oct 28 13:37:03 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Oct-87 11:02:42 EST
References: <152@uwspan.UUCP>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 68
Keywords: microport newsgroup created soon unix-at
Xref: utgpu news.groups:1708 comp.unix.xenix:928 comp.sys.ibm.pc:8195

In article <152@uwspan.UUCP> plocher@uwspan.UUCP (John Plocher) writes:
+================
|  When the proposal was submitted to the backbone it managed to set off a
|major discussion of how the comp.unix layout should really be done.  It was
|felt that breaking it up into BSD/SYS5 camps wan not really what was needed
|at this time, but a Microport group was desirable.
|================

So far you show good common sense

+================
|  We proceeded slowly, installing the needed software, making sure that
|Microport and Bell Tech both got news up and running so that they could
|participate, tested links and aliases, and even found a method to "do"
|this group with THREE moderators.  All this was in place and tested when 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
|================

You act on false assumptions here. The versions mentioned differ in
device drivers and support software. Many of the problems discussed here
have been related to either device drivers, the support group, or
installation and customization. Since these are not common, there is no
reason to group them.

Also, most of the discussion to which there has been objection in the
xenix group is microport based. Having created one vendor specific
group for xenix, what is the reason for not having a group for
microport.

+================
|  This specifies that the OS is true Unix, and not Xenix (which has it's
|own group) for any of the machines like the 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.
|================

I assume that since Xenix is developed from AT&T code it *is* "real
unix." It has some modifications to the utilities, and uses its own
compiler, but it is UNIX.

  I would suggest selection of one of the following solutions:

  1) make the xenix group the "micro-unix" group, and devote it to
all the flavors of UNIX which run on microcomputers. My definition: if
the CPU is one chip it's a micro. Use keywords to identify areas of
interest, rather than newsgroups. Include the unix-pc 3B1 portion of the
att group here, too.

  2) create a catch-all group as above and additional groups by vendor,
such as xenix, uport, bell, inix.

  3) create a catch-all group as above and additional groups by CPU
type, as 80286, 80386, 68k, etc.

I honestly believe that you are using groups to do the work of keywords.
Many postings will be germane to several groups as you have structured
them. Limiting the number of groups will limit the cross posting and
overhead. Since you have gotten the vendors involved and otherwise done
this very well, it would be a shame to see naming confuse the issue.
-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
  {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me