The right name for the 386 unix group

[Dave Mack]

In article <ek3ic#1KMWg0=eric at snark.uu.net> eric at snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>There's a move afoot to create a group for users of AT-clone 386 boxes running 
>under UNIX. I think this is a good idea; I have thought there was a need for
>this ever since I was recruited one of the original three co-moderators of
>comp.unix.microport.
>
>Previous similar proposals have all foundered amidst flame wars about the
>right way to name things. This may happen again; I hope it doesn't.
>
>The name 'comp.unix.i386' isn't good enough. Dave Mack was unnecessarily nasty
>but he was right. We don't want the Roadrunner people here, not because we
>dislike them but because the (large) constituency runs AT-bus machines and
>bus structure is an important discriminator. In fact, given the state of
>standardization efforts, it's *more* important than the vendor or UNIX flavor
>(which is why names like comp.unix.sysv.i386.etcetera miss the point).
>
>That suggests a solution. Call it
>
>		comp.unix.at386

After all the flak I've gotten about my original posting, I'm a little
hesitant to post this, but I'm afraid the Roadrunner *is* an AT-bus
machine. It has three AT slots and one XT slot.

How about comp.unix.386-clone?

-- 
Dave "The Cinder" Mack