I will not honor comp.unix.sco
chip at chinacat.Unicom.COM
Fri May 25 13:52:12 AEST 1990
In article <188 at shiloh.UUCP> kmoore at shiloh.UUCP (kirk moore) writes:
>[Re: there is a Microport group; why not SCO?]
>I seem to have developed a case of foot-n-month. So I pick up the nearest rock
>and crawl under it. Sorry for the bandwidth of use for a silly message.
Don't worry about it. There were probably dozens of folks who were
thinking this; you were the one bold enough to stand up and ask. There
were four or five posted responses; none of which flamed you to a crisp.
That is because the folks who disagree with the idea understand where it
comes from. So, thanks for the opportunity to set the record straight. :-)
Be that as it may, the problem might be fixed soon. Check out Chip
Salzenberg's (no...not me...the other-other chip) posting in news.groups.
We appear to be closing on a vote which will include a microport->sysv286
rename. I think the holdup at this point is getting the silly comp.unix.sco
vote over. We are now into the 6th week of this nonsense. So much for
the 21-day recommendation...
Chip Rosenthal | You aren't some icon carved out
chip at chinacat.Unicom.COM | of soap, sent down here to clean
Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 | up my reputation. -John Hiatt
More information about the Comp.unix.i386