Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:1937 news.groups:2081
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!unisoft!gethen!farren
From: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,news.groups
Subject: Re: Dividing comp.sys.att
Message-ID: <492@gethen.UUCP>
Date: 30 Dec 87 19:21:35 GMT
References: <167@mcmi.UUCP>
Reply-To: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren)
Organization: There's Unix there in Oakland
Lines: 32

In article <167@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes:
>Isn't it about time that comp.sys.att spawned comp.sys.att.3b1?

No. Reasons below.

>The idea being to separate discussions of the 3b1/7300 machines (which
>are much more oriented toward personal computer use), from those of the
>3b2s, 3b5s, etc. (oriented toward business/development use).

But where does that leave the 6300 users (whose talk actually swamps
all other discussion in comp.sys.att, in terms of the sheer number
of articles)?  

>The amount of 3b1 traffic makes it difficult for those only interested
>in the larger machines, and I would guess that a lot of 3b1 owners aren't
>really interested in the 3b2+ machines.

Well, this may or may not be true.  Personally, I'm interested in all
kinds of machines, including a number I will never own (comp.unix.cray
comes to mind...).  While it might be better if more discussion of 3b1
issues took place in the unix-pc groups, realistically, not everyone
gets those.  Until everyone does, I fail to see the need to separate
3b1 activity out within the context of the comp.sys groups.  This is
especially true when you consider the fact that 3b1 traffic is quite
small (it probably averages less than 3 messages a day), and is easily
filtered out without imposing that much of a handicap on anyone.

-- 
Michael J. Farren             | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just 
{ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}!     | dogmatize it!  Reflect on it and re-evaluate
        unisoft!gethen!farren | it.  You may want to change your mind someday."
gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame