New group comp.unix.sco

[Eric Schnoebelen]

For the record, I came out against comp.unix.sco when I first heard it
suggested in alt.config.  I said no then, and I still say *no* now.

In article <16 at grumbly.UUCP> root at grumbly.UUCP (Superuser) writes:
- In article <15292 at bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff at bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes:
- ->Keep in mind that Interactive sells other things too, as do many other
- ->vendors.  If comp.unix.interactive were proposed, I would vote against
- ->that too, and I would expect to see Dick Dunn's vote next to my own.
- ->(Unless the vote counter did an alpha sort :-) )
- 
- What about comp.unix.aix, c.u.aux, c.u.cray, c.u.ultrix, c.u.MICROPORT

        What about them...  Comp.unix.aix is devoted to the AIX variant
of Unix across a variety of platforms, granted, mostly IBM, but at one
point it was also to contain the OSF/1 stuff as well..

        Comp.unix.aux is about Unix on the Apple platforms, and and that
Unix is called A/UX.

        Comp.unix.ultrix is devoted to running Ultrix on a variety of
platforms as well, granted, all DEC, but not all VAXen.

        Comp.unix.micrport should really have been named comp.unix.i286.
My understanding is that it was created to get the Microport folks, who
were running a System V/286 out of comp.unix.xenix.  It seems that
System V/AT had very little in common with Xenix.  The group is almost
dead now, the 386 traffic that used to be there is know taken up by
c.u.i386.

	There is a common thread above, either common machine
architecture or a common software architecture.  I don't believe
that an SCO group would really fit either of those two criteria.

- SCO has a bigger base than any of these, but thats not the reason people
- want a sco group.  It is to cut down confusion - and there is confusion.

	Let's see, we could cut down the confusion even further
by having a comp.unix.esix, comp.unix.intel,
comp.unix.interactive, comp.unix.bsd, comp.unix.system5....

- You don't have to subscribe!

	No, but I will have to carry it.. (I feel a moral
obligation to carry all groups for my downstream sites.)

- SCO has no involvement with these groups - and it shouldn't, except to
- read it and answer questions when they can.  That is a bad idea to have
- a company sponsered newsgroup/newsletter.

	Why not get official support for it from SCO, and then
place it in the biz hierarchy?

        I still don't see the need for the group.  SCO Unix is best
covered in the group with other like Unixen, comp.unix.i386, SCO Xenix
is best covered with Xenixen, in comp.unix.xenix.  The other products
can be covered in the respective closest group, with perhaps a cross
post to one of the above, or perhaps posted only to one of the above..

        Another note, anything that can run on SCO Unix can run on
Interactive, Esix, or Intels Unix, since they all come from the same
porting base.  The same is true, at least at a source code level for the
various Xenixen.  I think by creating a separate SCO group, you would be
cutting yourself off from valuable resources in i386 and xenix.

	Just another two-bits...
-- 
Eric Schnoebelen		eric at cirr.com		schnoeb at convex.com
	... Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in
		terror, and you would not have been informed.