comp.unix.sys5-intel

[Chip Salzenberg]

According to vixie at decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie):
>According to chip at ateng.uucp (Chip Salzenberg):
># Current volume does not warrant a '286-'386 split.  So, essentially, I'm
># suggesting that we replace comp.unix.microport with comp.unix.sys5-intel.
>
>This is not a good idea.  [...]  Partly because, even if no 286/386 split
>is appropriate, the group would be called
>	comp.unix.sys5.intel

What is really meant here is: "Paul think the group should be called..."

I have a reason for the hyphen:  An earlier posting described the trouble
resulting from an early proposal of "comp.unix.sys5.i286", which later
became comp.unix.microport.  Unless we are planning to migrate all
System V ports to comp.unix.sys5.<whatever>, we should avoid creating a
comp.unix.sys5 hierarchy.  (And what of dual ports, like Pyramid's OSx?)

So, if people want to split 286/386 traffic, I would suggest:
	comp.unix.xenix
	comp.unix.sys5-i286
	comp.unix.sys5-i386

Note that I am _not_ the vote collector.  I _do_ hope that this proposal
becomes one of the nominees for the final vote.

>Whatever you do, do not _ever_ try to steamroller something like this
>through.

Point taken.  Let's do it right.

-- 
Chip Salzenberg                <chip at ateng.uu.net> or <uunet!ateng!chip>
A T Engineering                My employer may or may not agree with me.
        You make me wanna break the laws of time and space
                    You make me wanna eat pork