Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: AT&T unix V386 on Compaq hardware?
Message-ID: <12250@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 28 Feb 90 06:10:18 GMT
References: <1990Feb27.044606.14253@csustan.CSUStan.Edu> <12245@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1869@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 19

In article <1869@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes:
>His question makes a lot of sense to anyone who is knowledgeable about
>386 UNIX systems.  AT&T, SCO and ISC all sell a 386 UNIX system.  ...
>Also, it is quite common for there to be some variability in 386 systems ...

I know all that..

>You have a big gap in your knowledge when it comes to 386 UNIX systems,
>Doug.  Try to restrain yourself from presuming what you think people
>might mean, especially if they post the question to comp.unix.i386,
>as he did here.

Well, EXCUSE ME.  I don't read comp.unix.i386, and when a question about
"AT&T unix" shows up on comp.unix.questions, I think I'm justified in
assuming it means what it says, not "the hardware-specific version of
UNIX that AT&T happens to sell with their 6386 hardware".  People
shouldn't post 386-specific questions to comp.unix.questions, since
comp.unix.i386 is the proper place for those, or at least they shouldn't
complain if they get a generic UNIX answer instead of 386-specific one.