Questions and Answers comp.unix.sco

[Peter da Silva]

In article <217 at pcssc.UUCP> dma at pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes:
> 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.

So do what other people have done and create "vote-yes" and "vote-no".

> After  posting my first call to votes I was informed by a opponent to this
> group  that  uu.net  is intended to be use only by  internal  machines  to
> uunet.

Let's call a spade a spade. I sent you that mail because I just receieved a
draft of a form letter from UUNET. The letter basically said "The .uu.net
domain is only for UUNET machines. At some point in the future we will no
longer forward mail to this address". I thought you might want to know about
that ahead of time.

> Our sight is registered and either method seems to get  here
> fine.

If your site is registered, then you should be using the .com entry. I will
be doing the same as soon as our domain registration comes through.

I wish the folks at UUNET had been a bit more on the ball about this.
Apparently they changed their policy a while back and forgot to tell anyone.
In any case they're taking care of the problem and all UUNET customers should
be informed pretty soon.

> Why comp.unix.sco instead of comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386?

> There  are currently several groups that SCO users are welcome to post  to
> Two  of  these  groups  are   comp.unix.xenix  and  comp.unix.i386.    The
> descriptions of the groups read as follows:

>    comp.unix.i386  - Versions of Unix running on Intel 80386-bases boxes
>    comp.unix.xenix - Discussions about the Xenix OS.

> SCO  users  are  welcome to post to either group.  They are  intended  for
> operating  system related question.  Posting not regarding the OS are  may
> also be posted here but are usually inappropriate in this groups.

What other postings would one be making? SCO is an operating systems house.
Applications software that runs under SCO UNIX also runs under all the other
UNIX boxes out there, and is just as appropriate (or inappropriate) in .i386
as in the suggested .sco group.

> There are also other groups that can also be used for non-OS discussions.

Make that *should*. What subject matter is it that is appropriate for .sco
but not for .i386, .xenix, or (say) comp.databases?

> The  intention of comp.unix.sco is to have one groups that will  encompass
> all of the above for SCO users.

*Which* SCO users? Why should SCO Xenix users have to plow through UNIX junk?
Why should SCO UNIX users care about Xenix?

> Why are so many people against this group?

Because it's a bad idea.

> Most  the  negative posting are from the same people that feel  that  they
> need  to  express their opinions over and over again.

The same might be said of the supporters of comp.unix.sco. When people keep
posting messages containing the same invalid arguments again and again, it
becomes necessary to refute them again and again.

I'd also like to point out that continued politicking after the call for votes
is considered inappropriate. Discussion in news.groups is one thing, but
blatant requests for votes broadcast all over the net are a no-no.

I got .i386 passed without any such shenanigans. If .sco is a good idea, you
will be able to do the same.

> They  have  various
> reasons to be against this group but in general they do not want to change
> the  way  thing  are.

Right. That's why we're calling for a wholesale redesign of the comp.unix
hierarchy. We're so scared of change we need to change everything to prove it.

Finally, directing followups to "poster" is a cheap trick. Politicking for a
group after the call for votes is a cheap trick. This message was crossposted
to comp.unix.xenix, comp.unix.i386, comp.unix.questions, comp.unix.wizards, and
news.groups. What? You forgot comp.std.unix, comp.misc, comp.arch, and half
a dozen other vaguely relevant groups...
-- 
 _--_|\  `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180.      <peter at ficc.uu.net>
/      \  'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?  <peter at sugar.hackercorp.com>
\_.--._/       Disclaimer: commercial solicitation by email to this address
      v                    is acceptable.