Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:3044 comp.unix.microport:1352 news.groups:5194 Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!uport!plocher From: plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport,news.groups Subject: Re: new groups for iX86 unix (was: Bell Tech 386 SysVr3) Message-ID: <424@uport.UUCP> Date: 20 Aug 88 05:09:22 GMT References: <25145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <465@sp7040.UUCP> <11643@steinmetz.ge.com> <1988Aug16.011817.17102@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <593@morticia.cme-durer.ARPA> Reply-To: plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) Organization: Microport Systems, Scotts Valley, CA Lines: 34 >Let's get Bell Tech out of microport as well. I wouldn't mind NO! This may sound strange, coming from someone who works for Microport, but the ISC/Microport/BellTech/ATT productions of V.3 are so similar that it doesn't warrent a different group for each of them. What *is* needed is a combination of two things: 1) Better manners by all of us - this is a TECHNICAL newsgroup, not a opinion poll; nor is it a flame test area. You all have my phone and email addresses, use them instead of net.bandwidth if you must gripe - email gets results, posted flames (may) simply get ignored. 2) A change. Much as I like comp.unix.MICROPORT :-), the group was founded as a technical discussion area for Unix on Intel CPUs. This includes BT, ISC, AT&T, uport, and with V3.2, Xenix. The recent spat of *suggestions* for new names ignores a few simple facts: The daily volume of the group is about 10 messages per day; .xenix is similar. Does this volume require a split? NO. Does the group discourage postings about/for BT, ISC, or AT&T? NO. Does the name confuse people? YES. What SINGLE name is there which covers all aspects of this group? comp.unix.intel is the best compromise I can see. I'm not going to worry too much if it doesn't get changed, though - I (and I'm sure most other people) don't mind if others use this group too, if we all keep in mind that this is supposed to be comp.unix, not talk.unix. -John Plocher