Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!sce!xicom!alex
From: alex@xicom.uucp (Alex Laney)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION ' comp.sys.netware'
Keywords: novell, netware, protocols, lan
Message-ID: <1990Jan3.051117.11351@xicom.uucp>
Date: 3 Jan 90 05:11:17 GMT
References: <914@excelan.COM>
Reply-To: alex@xicom.UUCP (Alex Laney)
Organization: Xicom Products Group, Ottawa, Ont. Canada
Lines: 27


I think it is a good idea, except for the name.

I am one of those people who doesn't necessarily pick the simplest
solution ...

I guess I wonder why there is comp.dcom.xxx and comp.protocols.xxx
when something like comp.network.xxx could be in place. Therefore, I
propose that comp.network.novell or comp.network.netware be created
instead of comp.sys.netware. Now, I was on this network when the
change from mod.xxx to xxx.xxx happened, and I can understand the
intent. comp.protocols.tcp might have been for discussion of the
software issues, and comp.dcom.lans for discussion of LAN's, but it
just causes posting to wrong newsgroups, and making it harder to find
the right person to answer a question, etc., etc. There are lots of
TCP-IP networks around, and SNA networks and discussion of connection
issues, etc, in the comp.protocols subtree.

So, to sum up, I suggest a new subtree under comp, network, and as its
first member put netware.

Let's talk about it ...

-- 
Alex Laney, Xicom Group, National Semiconductor, Ottawa, Canada (613) 728-9099
uunet!mitel!sce!xicom!alex (alex@xicom.uucp)     Fax: (613) 728-1134
"You save time, increase the amount of work done and it is easy."