Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:2924 comp.unix.microport:1214 news.groups:5100
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pcrat!rick
From: rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport,news.groups
Subject: Re: Bell Tech 386 SysVr3
Summary: Group names .microport, .xenix remain absurd
Message-ID: <550@pcrat.UUCP>
Date: 7 Aug 88 01:51:39 GMT
References: <25145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <465@sp7040.UUCP> <11643@steinmetz.ge.com> <1988Jul30.141708.3175@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <86@jetson.
Reply-To: rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson)
Organization: PC Research, Inc., Tinton Falls, NJ
Lines: 27
Followup-To:

In article <404@uport.UUCP> plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) writes:
>
>Hey Guys,
>
>	Did you notice the name of the group you are flaming in?
>	I didn't think so.  Try comp.unix.xenix (or even better, try email)
>
>	-John Plocher

Cross posting to .xenix and .microport is needed these days, since
the net Gods have seen fit to provide only these two groups for
286 and 386 UNIX'es.  Where are Bell Tech, ISC, and Venturcom people
to go?  How can you discuss the relative merits of each companies
offerings without cross posting?

With the impending merge of UNIX, it makes more sense to just break
the groups as "i286" and "i386".

Not only does this break the audience into camps with similar needs
and problems, but it also gets rid of the commercial aspects to
the existing group names (something that doesn't bother me, but
does bother some).
-- 
		Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc.

(201) 542-3734 (voice, nights)   OR     (201) 389-8963 (voice, days)
uunet!pcrat!rick (UUCP)			rick%pcrat.uucp@uunet.uu.net (INTERNET)