I think we have a proposal on our hands (re: intel U**X)
Fred Rump
fred at cdin-1.uucp
Wed Aug 24 01:21:30 AEST 1988
In article <109 at jetson.UPMA.MD.US>, john at jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) writes:
> In article <62 at volition.dec.com>, vixie at decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes:
> > In <1988Aug19.122042.19070 at ateng.uucp> chip at ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg):
> > # comp.unix.xenix Microsoft Xenix and its derivatives
> > # comp.unix.sysv.i286 AT&T Unix System V for the '286
> > # comp.unix.sysv.i386 AT&T Unix System V for the '386
> > and comp.unix.microport (destroyed)
>
[ If we're going to do the .sysv. thing, let's at least stay consistent
[ within the USENET name space, and use .sys5., which has precedent in
[ comp.bugs.sys5.
[
[ I still feel that this is going to cause problems in the near future,
[ when plenty of people can rightly claim that Xenix/386 is "AT&T Unix
[ System V for the '386".
[
[ Probably the best way to handle voting on this is to first put up for
[ vote two or three naming proposals. The one that gets a plurality of
[ votes will then be put up for the "real" voting, requiring the 100
[ more yes than no votes. Hopefully, the "losers" of the first vote
[ will still vote yes for the second vote, so we can present a unified
[ front to the Guardians of the Namespace.
[
[ If there are no serious objections to the two-stage voting process,
[ I'll collect the votes. [vix: I'm posting instead of sending you mail
[ because I want reactions to the two-step proposal.]
[
[ Comments?
[
[ --
[ John Owens john at jetson.UPMA.MD.US
[ SMART HOUSE L.P. uunet!jetson!john (old uucp)
[ +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp at uunet.uu.net (old internet)
I like what you have to say. Just not sure whether you want mail or news
follow-ups.
I'll go with your first proposal.
Fred Rump
--
***************************
* This is a witty line. *
* Please disregard it. *
***************************
More information about the Comp.unix.microport
mailing list