I will not honor comp.unix.sco

[Tim Wood]

In article <1254 at chinacat.Unicom.COM> chip at chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) writes:
>...It's very likely that a vote for renaming both
>comp.unix.i386 and comp.unix.microport will happen shortly.  My favorite
>is comp.unix.sysv286 and comp.unix.sysv386.

Hmm, but these (specifically .sysv386) would seem to exclude non-SysV
UNIX (interface) alternatives for 386s, like Mach.  Since Mach looks
to be more technically advanced than SysV (Yes, I'm partial), it would
be useful to compare and contrast the two in one group.  I'm in favor
of keeping the comp.unix.i386 name, for generality.  Comp.os.mach would
not be the place for application-specific questions of Mach on 386s
such as the ones that appear here about SysV on 386s.

>In fact, this group demonstrates the failure of a vendor-organized
>hierarchy when a subject-oriented hierarchy is needed.  

I agree, groups should be formed on technical subjects, where vendors'
offerings can be compared and applications and generic concepts discussed.
-TW
---
Sybase, Inc. / 6475 Christie Ave. / Emeryville, CA / 94608	  415-596-3500
tim at sybase.com          {pacbell,pyramid,sun,{uunet,ucbvax}!mtxinu}!sybase!tim
		This message is solely my personal opinion.
		It is not a representation of Sybase, Inc.  Ohday.