Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:4683 comp.unix.microport:2723 news.groups:7099 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!rutgers!cbmvax!snark!eric From: eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport,news.groups Subject: The right name for the 386 unix group Message-ID: Date: 28 Jan 89 22:46:38 GMT Organization: Benevolent Space Xist Retirement Home Lines: 29 There's a move afoot to create a group for users of AT-clone 386 boxes running under UNIX. I think this is a good idea; I have thought there was a need for this ever since I was recruited one of the original three co-moderators of comp.unix.microport. Previous similar proposals have all foundered amidst flame wars about the right way to name things. This may happen again; I hope it doesn't. The name 'comp.unix.i386' isn't good enough. Dave Mack was unnecessarily nasty but he was right. We don't want the Roadrunner people here, not because we dislike them but because the (large) constituency runs AT-bus machines and bus structure is an important discriminator. In fact, given the state of standardization efforts, it's *more* important than the vendor or UNIX flavor (which is why names like comp.unix.sysv.i386.etcetera miss the point). That suggests a solution. Call it comp.unix.at386 or (if we buy market-leader Compaq's terminology) comp.unix.isa386 I think the former is preferable, but could live with the latter. But let's get a consensus on one of these! -- Eric S. Raymond (the mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews) Email: eric@snark.uu.net CompuServe: [72037,2306] Post: 22 S. Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355 Phone: (215)-296-5718