Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:3033 comp.unix.microport:1337 news.groups:5184 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pcrat!rick From: rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport,news.groups Subject: Re: new groups for iX86 unix (was: Bell Tech 386 SysVr3) Message-ID: <558@pcrat.UUCP> Date: 19 Aug 88 02:27:06 GMT References: <25145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <465@sp7040.UUCP> <11643@steinmetz.ge.com> <1988Aug16.011817.17102@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <593@morti Reply-To: rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) Organization: PC Research, Inc., Tinton Falls, NJ Lines: 32 In article <55@volition.dec.com> vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes: >On this basis, I think that two newsgroups, > comp.unix.sysv.i286 and > comp.unix.sysv.i386 >be reading it. There would be no cause for cross-posting. Both groups >should be moderated. The old groups, > comp.unix.xenix and > comp.unix.microport >should be destroyed in favor of these new groups. >I am still waiting for someone to give any reason -- even a flimsy reason -- >why this separation is not a good idea. The separation is a good idea. The sysv is not needed since the merge is toward one base UNIX flavor. I doubt there will ever be an Intel BSD port, and who would want to refragment the world just as we finally get some peace? Moderation? Don't drag that up. Let's get the groups. If someone volunteers to moderate later, well, then we can start the to moderate or not wars again. -- Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc. (201) 542-3734 (voice, nights) OR (201) 389-8963 (voice, days) uunet!pcrat!rick (UUCP) rick%pcrat.uucp@uunet.uu.net (INTERNET)