Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:3039 comp.unix.microport:1345 news.groups:5189 Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!ateng!chip From: chip@ateng.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport,news.groups Subject: Re: new groups for iX86 unix (was: Bell Tech 386 SysVr3) Message-ID: <1988Aug19.122042.19070@ateng.uucp> Date: 19 Aug 88 16:20:41 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> <55@volition.dec.com> Reply-To: chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL Lines: 30 According to vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie): >I am expecting UNIX V.4/386 to be more or less cause the >merge of Xenix and V/386 -- at least from a functional standpoint. Maybe, but it sure hasn't happened yet. And many problems and questions are related to OS _internals_, which I expect will always differ. I believe that these internal differences provide sufficient reason for a separate newsgroup for Xenix. >The old groups, > comp.unix.xenix and > comp.unix.microport >should be destroyed in favor of these new groups. Even if we pretend that SCO Xenix is System V, we shouldn't destroy comp.unix.xenix. Xenix is also available for the 68000, as many Tandy owners will affirm. Let's try this, instead: comp.unix.xenix Microsoft Xenix and its derivatives comp.unix.sysv.i286 AT&T Unix System V for the '286 comp.unix.sysv.i386 AT&T Unix System V for the '386 What say? -- Chip Salzenbergor A T Engineering My employer may or may not agree with me. You make me wanna break the laws of time and space You make me wanna eat pork