I think we have a proposal on our hands (re: intel U**X)

[John Owens]

In article <5824 at gryphon.CTS.COM>, greg at gryphon.CTS.COM (Greg Laskin) writes:
> In article <109 at jetson.UPMA.MD.US> john at jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) writes:
> >Are there still any other serious contenders, or is everyone
> >sufficiently happy with one of these to start voting between them?
> No. I object. Strenuously.
> Xenix is as unique a product as aux and ultrix.  It is not Intel specific.
> [....]
> For example, I would blindly vote against any proposal that deleted
> comp.unix.xenix [....]
> '386 users, Intel users and the like, whereas I would be inclined to
> vote in favor of a proposal to create a specific comp.unix.i386
> group or some such.

But Greg, one of the three contenders I mentioned keeps
comp.unix.xenix and creates a specific comp.unix.i386 group.  It
sounds like you're really objecting to two of the proposed contenders
for the "real" vote, so vote for that particular one once we decide on
the contenders.

I suppose what I'm trying to do here is similar to the Democratic
convention: get people to vote among a number of contenders, then get
all the supporters of any of them to vote for the one with the most
support, since they all feel that it's better than the alternative
(the Republicans or leaving comp.unix.{xenix,microport} as they are).

I don't think voting piecemeal is going to work - what if the vote
turned out as "yes - add comp.unix.i286, yes - delete
comp.unix.microport, no - don't add comp.unix.i386"?

If you don't like the final package candidate, vote no.  (Kind of like
voting no to Bush because you don't like Quayle.)

Are you with me, Greg?

-- 
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)