Xref: utzoo news.groups:2454 comp.unix.xenix:1449
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!vixie!paul
From: paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: --- Moderation problems with comp.unix.microport ---
Message-ID: <800@vixie.UUCP>
Date: 4 Feb 88 21:10:19 GMT
References: <389@zap.UUCP> <1663@van-bc.UUCP>
Reply-To: paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Vixie Enterprises, San Francisco
Lines: 56

In article <1663@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>On a second related topic let me reiterate my belief that we would be better
>served by having comp.unix.286 and comp.unix.386 groups as opposed to .xenix
>and .microport. As a 386 user I have little or *no* interest in reading
>anything at all to do with either Microport *or* Xenix on the 286. It has
>absolutely nothing to do with me. 

I tried to raise that point when comp.unix.microport was being considered.
Their solution was to have three different moderators, each handling a
different segment of the traffic; the subject lines of articles they posted
were all specifically marked as "386" or "286", etc.  The idea was that we
as news readers would put things in our "KILL" files (if we had rn) to make
sure we didn't see things we didn't care about.

In the 286 UNIX community, there are two principle products: Xenix and uPort.
In the 386 UNIX community, there is Sequent/Sun/other-BSD-products and then
there's Xenix/386, and then there's the AT&T-sponsored port, which is being
sold by Interactive, Bell Technologies, and Microport (as their 386 product).

>On the other hand even though I run microport 386 system v, I would like to 
>keep abreast of the discussion on Xenix 386. If it works better there I'll 
>switch.  And in point of fact by the end of the year they should be 
>basically one and the same.

Perhaps.  AT&T has not given a definitive statement of the AT&T/Sun agreement's
impact on the SysV/386 line.  I, for one, would rather use the merged SunOS
product than the merged Xenix product, and the 386 is easily powerful enough
to do this.  I doubt that we'll see a merged Xenix/SunOS/SysV product, though.
So I think there will continue to be two groups -- the Xenix-SysV and the
BSD-SysV mergers.  I expect both to be available on the 386.

>So might I suggest that a re-thinking of the .microport group might be in
>order.  I vote for comp.unix.386 (un-moderated of course). 

Well, first: you can't have a group with a digit-string as a component of
the name (it looks too much like an article in the spool directory).  Second,
I don't think that the Sequent/386 or SunOS/386 users are going to have much
in common with the Xenix or Interactive/BellTech/WG6386/Micrport-386 people.

Given those two facts, I proposed comp.unix.sysv.i386 rather than the
comp.unix.386 name you suggest.  SunOS/386 discussions will probably go
on in comp.sys.sun; Sequent/386 discussions will stay in comp.sys.sequent.

I'm for moderation, since it seems to work very well for the info-386ix
mailing list.  I have rejected nothing; however, repetitious questions are
usually posted with answers already appended, which keeps the irritation
level down.  If you have arguments against moderation for comp.unix.sysv.i386
(which, by the way, news.groups is presently voting on - send your vote today!)
please let me know.  (Hint: my mail connectivity is EXCELLENT, always has
been, always will be.  I do e-mail and system support for a living, and I
keep my own system Exactly Up To Snuff.)
-- 
Paul A Vixie Esq
paul%vixie@uunet.uu.net
{uunet,ptsfa,hoptoad}!vixie!paul
San Francisco, (415) 647-7023