new groups for iX86 unix (was: Bell Tech 386 SysVr3)

[John Plocher]

>Let's get Bell Tech out of microport as well.  I wouldn't mind

NO!  This may sound strange, coming from someone who works for Microport,
but the ISC/Microport/BellTech/ATT productions of V.3 are so similar that
it doesn't warrent a different group for each of them.  What *is* needed
is a combination of two things:

    1) Better manners by all of us - this is a TECHNICAL newsgroup, not
       a opinion poll; nor is it a flame test area.  You all have my
       phone and email addresses, use them instead of net.bandwidth
       if you must gripe - email gets results, posted flames (may) simply
       get ignored.

    2) A change.  Much as I like comp.unix.MICROPORT :-), the group
       was founded as a technical discussion area for Unix on Intel CPUs.
       This includes BT, ISC, AT&T, uport, and with V3.2, Xenix.

       The recent spat of *suggestions* for new names ignores a few simple
       facts:

         The daily volume of the group is about 10 messages per day; .xenix
         is similar.  Does this volume require a split?  NO.

         Does the group discourage postings about/for BT, ISC, or AT&T?  NO.

         Does the name confuse people?  YES.

What SINGLE name is there which covers all aspects of this group?
comp.unix.intel is the best compromise I can see.  I'm not going to
worry too much if it doesn't get changed, though - I (and I'm sure
most other people) don't mind if others use this group too, if we
all keep in mind that this is supposed to be comp.unix, not talk.unix.

  -John Plocher