comp.unix.apps (Re: comp.unix.sco)

[Peter da Silva]

In article <1106 at icdi10.UUCP> fr at icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) writes:
  [ about non-technical UNIX users] Feeding
> comp.unix.xenix or comp.unix.i386 to them is a total waste.  I've tried it and
> the stuff is simply not read as most of it is way over their heads or plainly
> not of interest from their vantage-point.

There are existing groups for applications: comp.text, comp.databases, etc.
Since many of these applications have DOS equivalents (many are copies of DOS
programs) perhaps these groups would be better.

> In the small systems world Xenix is still the
> standard.

And there is a group for that.

> The current vitriolic debate about comp.unix.sco could probably have been 
> avoided by having asked for a 386 applications specific subgroup that most
> current readers of comp.unix.xenix or comp.unix.i386 would not have been
> interested in and probably not opposed either.  At least, that is how I see
> the need being that I'm not privy to the proposer's real intent.

I agree. My original article on splitting up comp.unix included a
comp.unix.apps group. This was not thought a good idea by others, so I dropped
it. Perhaps it needs to be reconsidered.

> Perhaps there are others out there who actually have user/customers on the 
> net?  What say ye to such a group?

I say, let's have a Call For Discussion.

	New groups:

		comp.unix.misc
		comp.unix.huge
		comp.unix.apps

	Name changes:

		comp.unix.microport -> comp.unix.i286
-- 
 _--_|\  `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180.      <peter at ficc.uu.net>
/      \  'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?  <peter at sugar.hackercorp.com>
\_.--._/       Disclaimer: commercial solicitation by email to this address
      v                    is acceptable.