Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:3043 comp.unix.microport:1351 news.groups:5193
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: <943@scovert.sco.COM>
Date: 19 Aug 88 17:20:36 GMT
References: <25145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <465@sp7040.UUCP> <11643@steinmetz.ge.com> <1988Aug16.011817.17102@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <593@morti
Reply-To: davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.  (Scovert Operations)
Lines: 25

In article <942@scovert.sco.COM> I (The Cat in the Hat) said (mistakenly):
-
-The whole reason for creating comp.unix.microport was because of the flames
-that were flying in c.u.x about Mport.  

Before I get massive amounts of mail pointing it out, let me say that this
was not the ONLY reason this group was created.  At the time of it's creation
there was about a 50/50 split in requests for info about SCO and Mport xenix,
so splitting it up seemed like a good idea.

There was quite a bit of Mport flaming also, and this WAS a factor.  But not
the entire one.  My apologies for not making this clearer in my previous
posting.

Also, my previous posting refers only to c.u.x, and not c.u.microport.
But I'm sure (by the inevitability of the net) that the same arguments
I used can apply.

-- 
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."