Submission for comp-unix-microport

[UNIX-UNIX Cp]

Path: tolerant!voder!apple!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!steinmetz!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter at ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Which one:  Interactive, Microport, Xenix?
Message-ID: <2650 at ficc.uu.net>
Date: 6 Jan 89 20:01:00 GMT
References: <2410 at stiatl.UUCP> <324 at belltec.UUCP> <445 at marob.MASA.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 19

In article <445 at marob.MASA.COM>, daveh at marob.MASA.COM (Dave Hammond) writes:
> I have all the respect in the world for Dimitri Rotow and the
> Bell Tech organization, but newsgroups are NOT an appropriate forum for
> commercial advertisements. And the XENIX newsgroup, especially, is no place
> for the president of Bell Tech to pitch his own (competing) firm's software.

Why not the Xenix newsgroup, particularly? This is the closest there is
to a comp.unix.intel, after the attempt to create that newsgroup was so
badly fumbled.

Maybe it's time to resubmit a request for comp.unix.intel? No fancy footwork
with renaming comp.unix.xenix or comp.unix.microport... just a new group
for discussing intel-based UNIX systems. Maybe split it into .i386 and .i286,
but no more. Let .xenix and .microport revert to their original charter.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter at ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.   `-_-'
Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter at sugar.uu.net.                 'U`
Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.