Questions and Answers comp.unix.sco

[Evan Leibovitch]

In article <217 at pcssc.UUCP> dma at pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes:

>Why nay at pcssc.com instead of no at pcssc.com?
>
>I  was not able to set up a user called no on my Xenix/386 system  because
>it  is only a 2 character user name.  I had assumed that having a alias of
>2  characters  would pose the same problem.

The original point was your complaint that had comp.unix.sco been
created, you would have found this out. I fail to realize why
comp.unix.xenix would not have served that purpose.

>Why comp.unix.sco instead of biz.sco?
>
>The  biz  groups  are  for groups ran by the  vendors  themselves  and  is
>normally moderated by the vendor.

This is not the case at all. Not ONE of the biz groups is moderated. The
purpose of the biz groups is to allow vendor-specific discussions,
whether initiated by users, resellers or the vendor itself.

>SCO  users  are  welcome to post to either [comp.unix.xenix or
>comp.unix.i386].  They are  intended  for operating  system related
>question.  Posting not regarding the OS are  may
>also be posted here but are usually inappropriate in this groups.
>[...]
>The  intention of comp.unix.sco is to have one groups that will  encompass
>all of the above for SCO users.  In this new group discussions, questions,
>bug  reports,  ect.  regarding ALL SCO products can take place.

I would agree that there is no clearly apparent newsgroup for either
spreadsheets or MS-DOS-under-Unix. While I have not seen much traffic
from anyone on spreadsheets, there may be enough traffic on VP/ix and
Merge to justify its own group. But that's a separate discussion.

Should people using SCO VP/ix post to a different group than all other
users of VP/ix? Do the SCO users not have an interest in reaching the
largest pool of users, whether they're using SCO's version or someone
else's?

Would you have people with problems with SCO FoxBase post questions in
the sco group? Or, would you acknowledge that comp.database is read by
people from Ashton-Tate and people familiar with non-SCO versions of
FoxBase, as well as those who use SCO FoxBase. Present news-reading
software has ample mechanisms to allow one to ignore discussions one
isn't interested in.

Are questions on SCO Elan supposed to go to the sco group, when
the expertise in this field (including net.readers from Elan itself) is
clearly in comp.text?

If you have a problem with SCO TCP/IP talking to other systems, where
would you get the best response - from the catch-all sco group, or from
the group(s) specializing in tcp-ip?

Even for Xenix itself, why do SCO users have different goals from users
of Tandy Xenix or IBM Xenix?

There are hundreds of other exmples of this point: Whose interest is
served when SCO users segregate themselves from the rest of the net?

>Is SCO in favor of this group?
>
>Yes,  personnel at SCO has since the call to vote expressed that they  are
>in  favor  of  this group.  They feel that this group will  help  them  to
>better  support their customers that are members of the use-net community.
>The following is the email I received from Doug Michels at SCO:
>
>   "I would be delighted to see a group of this sort created.  It would
>   be a real service to SCO customers around the world and SCO would
>   enthusiastically support the activities of such a group in whatever
>   manner the group felt was appropriate and useful.

Actually, it is this element of the discussion that saddens me the most.
SCO, if it were indeed dedicated to uniting the Unix industry rather
than further fragmenting it, should have been the first to try to talk
you out of a separate group.

Instead, their sales flaks and management would love to keep people
thinking that their Unix is not, at its base, the same as others' 386
Unix. Based on mail I have received from people at SCO, I assure you the
view is not unanimous within the company.

The company is nothing more than a value-added reseller for Unix and
applications, and on rare occasions a developer of original products.
While its value-added is often significant, its role in the marketplace
is no different from Interactive, ESIX, etc. except for its size and
parentage.

>Why are so many people against this group?
>
>Most  the  negative posting are from the same people that feel  that  they
>need  to  express their opinions over and over again.  They  have  various
>reasons to be against this group but in general they do not want to change
>the  way  thing  are.

This is the third posting from Dave in which an otherwise reasoned
opinion degenerates near the end to personal attacks and paranoia.

There have been reasoned opinions stated on both sides of the issue. If
you choose to see those opposed to the group as merely net.luddites,
that is your option. But if you take a close look, you will notice that
you too can be grouped along with those who "need to express their
opinions again and again". How many nearly-identical postings have you
made, defending the group, SINCE the call for votes? If there were
points to be made, you should have made them during the discussion
period.

>Is it not improper for the vote taker to be so obviously for this group?
>
>No, I also am free to express my opinions and reasons for this groups just
>as my opponents are able to express why they may be against this group.

That's not the point. The purpose behind separate discussion and voting
periods is to allow for a voting period without electioneering.

There have been a number of tactics in this vote, none of which on their
own would be much cause for complaint, but which together bring the
fairness of this campaign into question:

- Setting "Followup-To: poster" on your articles to discourage comment;
- Having yes votes to be mailed to "yes" but no votes to "nay";
- Not posting an interim voters' list;
- Telling people against the group not to vote;
- Shameless electioneering during the voting period;
- Indulging in personal attacks on the peoposal's critics;
- Posting other people's private e-mail in support;

It is good to see that at least a few of these tactics have been
changed. But not all.

Although as the group proposer you should obviously be in favour of what
you're proposing, once you become a vote-TAKER you have to switch to
being objective, and let the votes fall where they may. If there are
more (different) arguments to be made for the group, then that means you
cut off the discussion period too soon.
-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
evan at telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / Moderator - rec.arts.erotica
    "I will walk where no man has never been!" - The Ultimate Warrior