Questions and Answers comp.unix.sco

Chip Salzenberg chip at tct.uucp
Thu May 3 00:09:55 AEST 1990

[Followups to news.groups, not "poster".  There's still discussion to do...]

According to dma at pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust):
>In this new group discussions, questions, bug reports, ect.
>regarding ALL SCO products can take place.

This proposed charter is both too narrow (only one vendor: SCO) and
too broad (all sorts of software: operating systems, word processing,
databases, etc, etc).

>Is SCO in favor of this group?

Who cares?  Usenet doesn't belong to SCO.

>The following is the email I received from Doug Michels at SCO:

Namedropping will *not* help.

>Most the negative posting are from the same people that feel that
>they need to express their opinions over and over again.

Mr. Armbrust here presumes to explain my motives as well as the
motives of other people who object to comp.unix.sco.  In the process,
he has provided a real-life example of the pot calling the kettle

>They have various reasons to be against this group but in general
>they do not want to change the way thing are.

This assertion is false.  I, for example, am currently collecting
opinions on a general reorganization of the comp.unix.* hierarchy.
I am doing so because several groups are badly named (comp.unix.i386,
comp.unix.microport), and because there are some obvious groups
(comp.unix.admin, comp.unix.misc) that could be created.  Given this
activity, I hardly fit Mr. Armbrust's description of a reactionary.

[Note, however, that the comp.unix reorganization has been put on hold
until the comp.unix.sco issue has been resolved.  I do not wish my
proposals to become enmeshed in the comp.unix.sco debacle.]

>The posting you see do not reflect the general opinions of the

Now Mr. Armbrust is a mind reader?  I think not.

>You will see this posting torn apart and criticized.

You got that right, Bo.

>This use-net is a great example of democracy in action.

Mr. Armbrust does not understand the Usenet at all.  A democracy is,
ideally, a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Usenet is a network of the owners, by the administrators and for the
users.  In a democracy, the people are the eventual basis of all
power.  Power in Usenet comes from owning and/or administering a
machine.  The difference is obvious to anyone familiar with Usenet.

| Comp.unix.sco must go.  This is non-negotiable. |

The arguments against comp.unix.sco are not as easily dismissed as Mr.
Armbrust would wish.  Comp.unix.sco would be a confused mix of
operating systems, development systems and applications with only one
thing in common: the "SCO" name on the boxes they came in.  This is
the Usenet of the future?

If comp.unix.i386 is too crowded, there are more intelligent ways to
split it.  If particular SCO applications have no appropriate
newsgroups, such can be created to cover broad application classes.
But comp.unix.sco is *not* the answer.

I urge:  Just say "Nay" to comp.unix.sco.
The vote adresses are <nay at> (Nay) or <yes at> (Yes).
Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT   <chip%tct at>, <uunet!ateng!tct!chip>

More information about the Comp.unix.i386 mailing list