Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:3071 comp.unix.microport:1374 news.groups:5210 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!mailrus!uwmcsd1!marque!gryphon!greg From: greg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Greg Laskin) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport,news.groups Subject: Re: I think we have a proposal on our hands (re: intel U**X) Message-ID: <5824@gryphon.CTS.COM> Date: 23 Aug 88 03:30:58 GMT References: <25145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <465@sp7040.UUCP> <11643@steinmetz.ge.com> <62@volition.dec.com> <109@jetson.UPMA.MD.US> Reply-To: greg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Greg Laskin) Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA Lines: 49 In article <109@jetson.UPMA.MD.US> john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) writes: >In article <62@volition.dec.com>, vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes: >> In <1988Aug19.122042.19070@ateng.uucp> chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg): >> # comp.unix.xenix Microsoft Xenix and its derivatives >> # comp.unix.sysv.i286 AT&T Unix System V for the '286 >> # comp.unix.sysv.i386 AT&T Unix System V for the '386 >> and comp.unix.microport (destroyed) > >If we're going to do the .sysv. thing, let's at least stay consistent >within the USENET name space, and use .sys5., which has precedent in >comp.bugs.sys5. > >I still feel that this is going to cause problems in the near future, >when plenty of people can rightly claim that Xenix/386 is "AT&T Unix >System V for the '386". > >Probably the best way to handle voting on this is to first put up for >vote two or three naming proposals. The one that gets a plurality of > > comp.unix.i286 UNIX on systems using the Intel '286 CPU > comp.unix.i386 UNIX on systems using the Intel '386 CPU > (delete comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.microport) > >and another popular one: > > comp.unix.intel UNIX on systems using Intel CPUs > (delete comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.microport) > >Are there still any other serious contenders, or is everyone >sufficiently happy with one of these to start voting between them? > No. I object. Strenuously. Xenix is as unique a product as aux and ultrix. It is not Intel specific. Voting on wholesale renaming proposals randomly suggested in an effort to accomplish some great organizational goal will be less productive than voting on the creation of specific groups and letting those that you are not particularly interested in die for lack of interest. For example, I would blindly vote against any proposal that deleted comp.unix.xenix regardless of how well it organized the universe for '386 users, Intel users and the like, whereas I would be inclined to vote in favor of a proposal to create a specific comp.unix.i386 group or some such. -- Greg Laskin greg@gryphon.CTS.COM !gryphon!greg