Come on, stop blaming/flaming SCO!

[J.T. Conklin]

In article <229 at pcssc.UUCP> dma at pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes:
>Lets take Lyrix as an example.  Most questions regarding lyrix is not
>going to be so simple that someone that knows eroff or Microsoft Word
>is going to be able to answer this question.

You wouldn't get much help from the TeX, troff, WP, or Word folks
in comp.text, but what about Uniplex.  (Wasn't Lyrix derived from
Uniplex?)  

>If the group comp.unix.sco
>passes then we will be able to add sub-groups with in this group if
>there is a call for this.  comp.unix.sco.lyrix I beleive would make
>more sense then comp.unix.i386.apps.lyrix.

If a Unix applications group is created, you can be assured that we
would tie it to a particular software/hardware platform.  In fact, it
probably shouldn't even be tied to operating system!  It makes much
more sense to separate it by application type.

	comp.applications.text-processing
	comp.applications.databases
	comp.applications.office-automation
	
>It may be that discussions for 386/Unix OS should go into comp.unix.i386
>rather then comp.unix.sco.  (Yes you heard right I did back down a tad!) 

>But other applications sold primarly or exclusively by SCO (ODT, lyrix,
>Office Portfolo, ect) should be in comp.unix.sco or a sub-group of
>comp.unix.sco.

Again, I must point out that ODT is merely a repackaging of other
vendors product which are/may be availiable from the original source.
Even on completely different hardware platforms.

I invite you to describe the significant differences between:

	Xsight		MIT X Consortium X11R3
	Motif		OSF/Motif
	Ingres		RTI Ingres
	TCP/IP		TCP/IP
	NFS		NFS

Separating the SCO users of these products fragment them the other
users on the network.  There is a hugenormous abundance of expertise
on the net, but it can only be shared if we cooperate.

	--jtc


-- 
J.T. Conklin	UniFax Communications Inc.
		...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!jtc, jtc at wimsey.bc.ca