Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!rice!sun-spots-request
From: bob@cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun
Subject: Re: SUG SEX: a quiet moment afterwards
Message-ID: <8812121604.AA01724@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 88 04:46:14 GMT
Sender: usenet@rice.edu
Organization: Sun-Spots
Lines: 20
Approved: Sun-Spots@rice.edu
Original-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 88 11:04:18 EST
X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 7, Issue 63, message 1 of 11

chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes:
>Well, I'm already looking at SUG-SEX '89, and would like some
>feedback from '88 participants.
>
>Should we do it again?

Yes! by all means.

>What would make it better?

Wonderful as it was for the nice folks to provide you with a machine with
a shoebox and a tape drive on the spur of the moment, the resources simply
weren't adequate to the demand.  It needs more concurrent tapetools, more
tape drives, and more disk space.  In other words, several machines
sharing NFS with each other.  What a remarkable idea for Sun users!

The SEX machine should be attached to the rest of the floor network.
Perhaps vendors in booths would provide tape drives on their demo
machines.  You could walk up with a tape and while it's grinding, they
would have you captive to listen to a sales talk :-)