Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:3041 comp.unix.microport:1349 news.groups:5191 Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!sco!davidbe From: davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport,news.groups Subject: Re: new groups for iX86 unix (was: Bell Tech 386 SysVr3) Message-ID: <941@scovert.sco.COM> Date: 19 Aug 88 16:51:47 GMT References: <25145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <465@sp7040.UUCP> <11643@steinmetz.ge.com> <1988Aug16.011817.17102@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <1608@edis Reply-To: davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. (Scovert Operations) Lines: 20 A long long time ago in an article far far away (<5562@rpp386.UUCP> to be exact) jfh@rpp386.UUCP (The Beach Bum) said: -there is precious little point in adding all those groups. someone will -only think of a new way to add even more groups. what is needed is to -take the uPort/Xenix flaming out of these groups for good. We probably won't do that until we either get a moderated comp.unix.Xenix/uPort OR a comp.unix.flame group. Comp.unix.flame has a certain appeal. Makes about as much sense as splitting up into 286/386 groups. Not that I'm suggesting it, mind you. Just pointing it out. -- David Bedno (aka The Cat in the Hat) Now appearing at: davidbe@sco.COM -OR- ...!{uunet,decvax!microsoft,ucbvax!ucscc}!sco!davidbe -OR- At home: 408-425-5266 At work: 408-425-7222 x5123 (I'm probably here...) Disclaimer: Not SCO's opinions. At least not that they've told me. "If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything."