Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:3114 comp.unix.microport:1405 news.groups:5238 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ateng!chip From: chip@ateng.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport,news.groups Subject: Re: comp.unix.sys5-intel Message-ID: <1988Aug25.124543.20835@ateng.uucp> Date: 25 Aug 88 16:45:42 GMT References: <25145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1988Aug23.120758.9051@ateng.uucp> <79@volition.dec.com> Reply-To: chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL Lines: 35 According to vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie): >According to chip@ateng.uucp (Chip Salzenberg): ># Current volume does not warrant a '286-'386 split. So, essentially, I'm ># suggesting that we replace comp.unix.microport with comp.unix.sys5-intel. > >This is not a good idea. [...] Partly because, even if no 286/386 split >is appropriate, the group would be called > comp.unix.sys5.intel What is really meant here is: "Paul think the group should be called..." I have a reason for the hyphen: An earlier posting described the trouble resulting from an early proposal of "comp.unix.sys5.i286", which later became comp.unix.microport. Unless we are planning to migrate all System V ports to comp.unix.sys5., we should avoid creating a comp.unix.sys5 hierarchy. (And what of dual ports, like Pyramid's OSx?) So, if people want to split 286/386 traffic, I would suggest: comp.unix.xenix comp.unix.sys5-i286 comp.unix.sys5-i386 Note that I am _not_ the vote collector. I _do_ hope that this proposal becomes one of the nominees for the final vote. >Whatever you do, do not _ever_ try to steamroller something like this >through. Point taken. Let's do it right. -- Chip Salzenberg or A T Engineering My employer may or may not agree with me. You make me wanna break the laws of time and space You make me wanna eat pork