Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!gatech!dcatla!holos0!fsg
From: fsg@holos0.UUCP (Frank Glass)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: .xenix .microport groups
Message-ID: <1259@holos0.UUCP>
Date: 8 Aug 88 20:40:18 GMT
References: <550@pcrat.UUCP>
Reply-To: fsg@holos0.UUCP (Frank Glass)
Distribution: na
Organization: Holos Software, Atlanta
Lines: 33

From article <550@pcrat.UUCP>, by rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson):
> 
> 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".
> 
	I appreciate the fact that SCO people monitor and post to the
.xenix group, also that microport is active in the .microport group.
Disclaimers notwithstanding, I feel that the postings by people from those
organizations provide useful statements of policy and fact.  If anything,
we should have additional groups for Bell Tech et al.

	Discussing the merits of a particular product could remain in the specific
group.  It is unclear that a level discussion of the _relative_ merits can ever
take place, with or without cross posting.  The last BT vs Microport and
UNIX vs Xenix "discussions" of relative merit consisted of many flames, much
posturing and generally low signal to noise ratio.  Combining vendor factions
would only make that sort of thing more likely.

	On the other hand, seperating i286 and i386 discussions is an idea with
some merit, if only because the Rube Goldberg methods of dealing with the
segmentation problems of the 286 can be forgotten in 386 implementations.

-- 
Frank Glass
Holos Software, Inc.
Voice: (404) 496-1358
UUCP: ...!gatech!holos0!fsg