"comp.sys.3b2" and "comp.sources.3b2" anyone?

a.e.mossberg aem at mthvax.cs.miami.edu
Tue Jan 29 02:28:27 AEST 1991

In <1991Jan28.012133.13672 at mtek.com> bbh at mtek.com (Bud Hovell @ Mtek) writes:

>Any chance that the folks in the 'u3b' groups might like to come over
>and play under the new schema?

>Particularly for those such as we who have older 3B2 machines, the logic for
>doing so may be as compelling as that which the vast majority of us
>supported in voting the switchover from unix-pc.* to comp.*.3b1. It appears
>the 'u3b' groups suffer equally from lack of general distribution. And there
>are alot more 3B2 machines of various shades than 3B1s, so readership
>should not be an issue, it would seem.

It seems that it would make more sense from the beginning to have a
comp.sys.3b and comp.sources.3b since neither the unix-pc nor the u3b
hierarchies are exactly high volume, then in the future if it was
warranted subgroups comp.*.3b.1, comp.*.3b.2 could have been created.
What do I know though?

sysadmins for logical usenet naming (SLUN)

aem at mthvax.cs.miami.edu .......................................................
Contaminate your bed, 
and you will one night suffocate in your own waste.	- Chief Seattle

More information about the Comp.sys.3b1 mailing list