Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:4720 comp.unix.microport:2742 news.groups:7117 Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!inco!mack From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport,news.groups Subject: Re: The right name for the 386 unix group Message-ID: <4447@inco.UUCP> Date: 31 Jan 89 03:42:06 GMT References: Reply-To: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Followup-To: comp.unix.xenix Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA Lines: 28 In article eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >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 After all the flak I've gotten about my original posting, I'm a little hesitant to post this, but I'm afraid the Roadrunner *is* an AT-bus machine. It has three AT slots and one XT slot. How about comp.unix.386-clone? -- Dave "The Cinder" Mack