Come on, stop blaming/flaming SCO!

[Dave Armbrust]

In article <376 at van-bc.UUCP> jtc at van-bc.UUCP (J.T. Conklin) writes:
>>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 does not make sense to tie applications groups to specific software/hardware
platforms.  Most applications don't care what platform they run on as long
as it is a true Unix platform.

comp.applications.text-processing need to be tied at least to the OS.
(i.e. comp.unix.applications.text-processing).  But this is still too
broad.  Does anyone know how many different text-processing apps run 
under UNIX?  Even if we could convince users with a lyrix question to post to
comp.unix.applications.text-processing do you think a person with expertise
with lyrix would spend the time to read through these postings about all these
different text processor?  Do you think SCO is unreasonable because they don't
want to either? Besides non-technical users do not want to read about all the
different word processors, they want to read about THEIR word processor.  

There may be an argument for comp.unix.lyrix rather then comp.unix.sco.lyrix
but this is a specific product developed and marketted by SCO.  If this
was the only specific product sold by SCO then comp.unix.lyrix may be
a better choice, but SCO has many unique products and are adding more all the
time.  (Lyrix, ODT, Office Portfolio, ect).   Yes open-descktop is a SCO only
product.

There would not be enought trafic for lyrix to have it own group.  There
would not be enough for ODT, Office Portfolio, Manager, ect. either.
There would be enought for all these to be combined into comp.unix.sco
and if further sub-divission is needed it can then be added.

>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.

They many products that they remarket with 'added function' and
they have products that remarket unchanged.  Depending on the 'degree of
added function' it may be more desirable to group these with other
'nearly identical' products.  Comp.unix.sco does not prevent us from from
doing this.

>                       There is a hugenormous abundance of expertise
>on the net, but it can only be shared if we cooperate.

And this hugenormous abundance of expertise is almost impossible for
a non-expert to get at.  What is so wrong with making it a little easier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Armbrust               |     uunet!pcssc!dma
PC Software Systems         |     Phone: (813)365-1162
2121 Cornell Street         |
Sarasota, FL 34237          |