Bell Tech 386 SysVr3

[Rick Richardson]

In article <31060 at clyde.ATT.COM> wtr at moss.UUCP (Bill Rankin) writes:
>In article <722 at wb3ffv.UUCP> howardl at wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) writes:
>>In article <550 at pcrat.UUCP>, rick at pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes:
>
>>> With the impending merge of UNIX, it makes more sense to just break
>>> the groups as "i286" and "i386".
>
>this idea has been gone over and argued multiple times, and was 
>discussed heavily when this newsgroup was formed.  it's a BAD idea
>for this reason:  it would put the XENIX camp in with the INTERACTIVE
>port team (microport/bell tech/etc..).
>
>would all the would-be prophets of the XENIX world stop
>their **garbage** postings in comp.unix.microport!

I remember the multiple times it has been discussed.  But times
have changed.

I don't own either Microport or Xenix, for either of my 286 or 386 machines.
Yet I have UNIX ports that run on both. (Well, not true, I do own a
copy of Microport V/AT, I just don't use it!).

You want vendor specific groups for support, which is reasonable.
But you don't want the vendor bashing in your support group.

Other people do want the vendor bashing, and comparisons, etc. so
they can make intelligent (?) decisions.

OK, so let's make these groups:

comp.unix.xenix		Discussions about the XENIX O.S.
comp.unix.microport	Discussions about Microport's UNIX
comp.unix.i286		General discussions of any *NIX on the Intel 80286 
comp.unix.i386		General discussions of any *NIX on the Intel 80386 

With any luck, the comparisons, bashing, et all can go on in the
generic groups.  Leaving your sanctioned 'support' groups free from
clutter.

And then there is the potential for a dos_unix (DOS under UNIX)
group, for VP/ix and Merge discussions.

But lets get the first four groups under control once and for all, first.
-- 
		Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc.

(201) 542-3734 (voice, nights)   OR     (201) 389-8963 (voice, days)
uunet!pcrat!rick (UUCP)			rick%pcrat.uucp at uunet.uu.net (INTERNET)