Xref: utzoo news.groups:5182 comp.unix.xenix:3030 comp.unix.microport:1331 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!vixie From: vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport Subject: Re: call for discussion: how should these U**X/*86 newsgroups be named? Message-ID: <56@volition.dec.com> Date: 18 Aug 88 20:47:04 GMT References: <25145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <465@sp7040.UUCP> <11643@steinmetz.ge.com> <51@volition.dec.com> <182@visenix.UUCP> Organization: DEC Western Research Lab Lines: 23 In article <182@visenix.UUCP> beattie@visenix.UUCP (Brian Beattie) writes: # > comp.unix.microport destroy # > comp.unix.xenix destroy # This proposal assumes that Xenix will become so much like # Intel/Microport/ATT/ISC that the groups will completely overlap # I find this doubtfull. I believe that Microsoft will continue # to have significant differences from the V/AT and V/386 products. I am convinced by this argument of the need for comp.unix.sysv.i286 comp.unix.sysv.i386 comp.unix.sysv.xenix That is: okay, I'll take your word for the fact that Xenix will always be bizarre. Let's give it its own group. All other 286 ports are basically alike, as are all other 386 ports. With trivial effort, I can be convinced that xenix does not belong in .sysv. -- Paul Vixie Digital Equipment Corporation Work: vixie@dec.com Play: paul@vixie.UUCP Western Research Laboratory uunet!decwrl!vixie uunet!vixie!paul Palo Alto, California, USA +1 415 853 6600 +1 415 864 7013