why we have to keep comp.unix.xenix

[Howard Leadmon]

In article <78 at volition.dec.com>, vixie at decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes:
> 
> Someone is trying to collect proposals.  Post yours or mail it.  Mine,
> for the record, is:
> 
> 	comp.unix.sys5.286	(for V/AT and similars)
> 	comp.unix.sys5.386	(for 386/ix and derivatives)
> 	comp.unix.xenix		(for Xenix on all manner of CPUs)
> 	comp.unix.microport	(wait for volume to fall off,
> 				 then delete it.  Post messages
> 				 to it regularly telling of the
> 				 existence of comp.unix.sys5.*  I
> 				 will do this.)


 Well I can agree and be very happy with the group names listed above, but I
wonder if we need the .sys5 in the middle of the name ?? Why not for example
just call it comp.unix.286, instead of comp.unix.sys5.286..


> If someone with a reputation for solidity wants to moderate either of
> the comp.unix.sys5 groups, please contact me by e-mail.  I think these
> groups should be moderated, but I'm not willing to do it myself so I
> can't propose it.

 This idea I don't like, as I don't believe there have been any problems in the
various UNIX groups. I remember when comp.unix.microport was first started, and
it was moderated. I as well as many others would never take the time to post 
anything to the group, and needless to say the amount of good net activity was
almost nil. If you don't believe this, then just make comp.unix.microport a 
moderated group, and watch how everybody moves to comp.unix.xenix for the
various microport issues (As if this still dosen't happen :-). Just figured
since this is the big topic of discussion I would inject my $.02 worth...



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP/SMTP : howardl at wb3ffv		|	Howard D. Leadmon
PACKET    : WB3FFV @ W3ITM		|	Fast Computer Service, Inc.
IP Address: 44.60.0.1			|	P.O. Box  171 
Telephone : (301)-335-2206		|	Chase, MD  21027-0171