Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:4737 comp.unix.microport:2752 news.groups:7138
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ames!amdcad!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!steinmetz!ge-dab!ge-rtp!edison!rja
From: rja@edison.GE.COM (rja)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport,news.groups
Subject: Re: The right name for the 386 unix group
Message-ID: <1796@edison.GE.COM>
Date: 30 Jan 89 12:34:46 GMT
References: <ek3ic#1KMWg0=eric@snark.uu.net>
Organization: GE-Fanuc North America
Lines: 15

In article <ek3ic#1KMWg0=eric@snark.uu.net>, eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes:

> 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).
> 

Not True.  The Sun RoadRunners have an AT-bus.  In any event, SunOS for
the 386i is -- guess what -- UNIX V.4 (or will be within 6 months).  As
a practical matter I'm confident that the Sun folks will continue to use
comp.sys.sun for their problems.  Let's just create the group and avoid
the meta-discussion this time.