Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!uunet!nuchat!splut!jay
From: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION ' comp.sys.netware'
Keywords: novell, netware, protocols, lan
Message-ID: <.RZZ:B@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 24 Dec 89 13:39:43 GMT
References: <919@excelan.COM> <Dec.22.16.55.46.1989.20053@genbank.BIO.NET>
Reply-To: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 16

In article <Dec.22.16.55.46.1989.20053@genbank.BIO.NET> lear@genbank.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) writes:
>dcom is far better than with the continued polution of sys with
>software.  So I would strongly suggest comp.dcom.netware, to the point
>that I'd rather have no group than comp.sys.netware.  What about
>comp.software.networking?

After thinking about it, I agree that comp.sys is the wrong place for
it; where we differ is that I think comp.dcom[.lan] is wrong too, since
NetWare is more than a LAN, too: it's an operating system. Perhaps
comp.os.netware, or comp.soft-sys.netware?

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL   | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jay@splut.conmicro.com       (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
     Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...