Questions and Answers comp.unix.sco

[terryl at tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM]

+In article <217 at pcssc.UUCP> dma at pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes:
+Why nay at pcssc.com instead of no at pcssc.com?

+I  was not able to set up a user called no on my Xenix/386 system  because
+it  is only a 2 character user name.  I had assumed that having a alias of
+2  characters  would pose the same problem.  This is not the case  as  had
+been  pointed  out to me by other users.  I have now set up  a  forwarding
+alias  for  no and for those users that want to send mail to  no at pcssc.com
+instead  of  nay at pcssc.com you can now do this.  If you would rather  send
+your  yes  vote to yea at pcssc.com instead of yes at pcssc.com you can do  this
+also.   I  hope these changes will resolve the objects to nay although  my
+instructions  were clear how to vote.  I was quite surprised that so  many
+people objected to my clear instructions.


     Not having ANY experience with Xenix, but quite a bit of experience with
UNIX in general, I find this very difficult to believe. Why should Xenix care
how many letters are in a login name????

+Why was pcssc.uu.net was changed to pcssc.com?
+Why comp.unix.sco instead of biz.sco?
+Why comp.unix.sco instead of comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386?

     You've read these questions and answers man times before; no need to waste
bandwidth repeating them.

+Whose idea is this group SCO or Dave Armbrust?
+Is SCO in favor of this group?

     Irrelevant questions and answers; in fact, the second question should be
tossed out as "biased".

+Is this group then intended to make up for SCO deficiencies in support?
+
+No,  I beleive SCO's support is second to none in the industry.  But as is
+so often the case with support, better can be provided. I believe that SCO
+is interested in providing the best support that they can.  This group  is
+just another way for them to improve on what they currently offer.

     Hmm, it seems to me, Mr. Armbrust, that you're doing a little backpaddling
here. In a previous post, someone mentioned that "SCO's support org does have
some problems" (slightly paraphrased, but the gist is the same).

+Why are so many people against this group?
+
+Most  the  negative posting are from the same people that feel  that  they
+need  to  express their opinions over and over again.  They  have  various
+reasons to be against this group but in general they do not want to change
+the  way  thing  are.   The posting you see do  not  reflect  the  general
+opinions  of  the net-users.  When the votes are counted each person  only
+gets  one vote but there is no limit to how many posting of their opinions
+can be made.  Only the votes will determine if this group is formed.

     You mean, just like you've done how many times now??? Seems like that's
"the pot calling the kettle black", IMHO.

+You  will see this posting torn apart and criticized.  You will see a  few
+stand  up in my defence.  This is their right to do this and I do not want
+to  restrict that right.  This use-net is a great example of democracy  in
+action.   Everyone can express their opinions freely but in the end it  is
+the  votes  that count.  But as in any free society what you hear  on  the
+'news' is not always the opinions of the general community.

      Haven't seen much defense, Mr. Armbrust, but one thing I have seen:
MANY people have raised valid criticisms against this group, along with many
valid questions that you have chosen to ignore. Why is this????

+Is it not improper for the vote taker to be so obviously for this group?
+Sounds good,  when will this group be formed?
+Why don't I just wait for the results from other net users?
+What if I am against this group?

     Again, irrelevant questions, and again, the second question should be
thrown out as "biased".

     So, I ask again, Mr. Armbrust: How about answering some of the questions
people have put forth here on the net????

     Also, Mr. Armbrust is still doing the old "Followup-To: poster" trick.
I really have to question Mr. Armbrust's motives in all this when he is delib-
erately trying to stifle open discussion.

     BTW, when I submitted my "nay" vote, I got back a canned e-mail letter
that was (probably) the previous post Mr. Armbrust sent to the net. I then got
another e-mail letter about a week later saying my "no" vote has been recorded.
I am really beginning to question the way things are being handled, and if you
are at all interested in the outcome of the vote, make sure your vote got tab-
ulated correctly.

				Terry Laskodi
				     of
				Tektronix