Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:1945 news.groups:2098
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ut-sally!ut-emx!mybest!paddock
From: paddock@mybest.UUCP (Steve Paddock)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,news.groups
Subject: Re: Dividing comp.sys.att
Message-ID: <63@mybest.UUCP>
Date: 2 Jan 88 00:47:57 GMT
References: <167@mcmi.UUCP> <266@tsc.DEC.COM> <170@mcmi.UUCP>
Reply-To: paddock@mybest.UUCP (pri=-0-Steve Paddock)
Organization: Best Printing Co., Austin, Tx.
Lines: 32

In article <170@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Dennis Page) writes:
>In article <266@tsc.DEC.COM> pete@tsc.DEC.COM (Pete Schmitt) writes:

...various reasons for splitting or not splitting comp.sys.att...

Just one more vote not to fix what's not broken.  

This all seems to have blown up while my news feed was down, so
I hope the voting is still happening.  I have managed to define
the majority of the 3b1/7300 stuff I don't want to read into one kill
command (/3.51/j), and I _like_ the melange of AT&T stuff.  I
think the dividing of news groups should not take place unless
there is not hope of a reconciliation. :-)
We'll just end up having to watch 2 sets of kill commands run. :-)

The 3B1, like my 6300 Plus, sadly, is a now inexpensive machine on
the way off the market.  I don't see where we are served by having
a news group for each model of hardware when the commonality of
being customers of AT&T is much greater.  

As someone else noted here, code that runs on AT&T machines seems to 
be the same everywhere.  I recall the Usenix article on math library
testers; 3B2 and 3B20 (totally different processors) got identical results;
the 3B2 just took 2 days.  (I love the 2 I work on!)

I'd like to hear more 2 and 5 and 15 and 20 stories, but the answer is
not to have a dead newsgroup, and running off the 3B1 users won't get
the 3B2 users to post!

-- 
Steve Paddock (ut-emx!mybest!paddock) 512-477-9736
Best Printing Co,  Austin, Texas  78767