Come on, stop blaming/flaming SCO!

[Dave Armbrust]

In article <2237 at crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen at crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>  There are some very good arguments for comp.unix.i386.apps, and Peter
>has made most of them (although I don't think that's the name he
>mentioned). Since the same apps run on ALL 386 versions called UNIX
>(they have to to get the right to call it UNIX) there could be one group.

For that matter most if not all apps that run on 286 also will run on
386 Unix/Xenix systems.  For this reason putting app as a sub group
of i386 does not make sence to me.  What makes more sense is comp.unix.apps.
I also beleive that the vendor is important and should be part of this
name.  

Lets take Lyrix as an example.  Most questions regarding lyrix is not
going to be so simple that someone that knows eroff or Microsoft Word
is going to be able to answer this question.  If the group comp.unix.sco
passes then we will be able to add sub-groups with in this group if
there is a call for this.  comp.unix.sco.lyrix I beleive would make
more sense then comp.unix.i386.apps.lyrix.

It may be that discussions for 386/Unix OS should go into comp.unix.i386
rather then comp.unix.sco.  (Yes you heard right I did back down a tad!) 
But other applications sold primarly or exclusively by SCO (ODT, lyrix,
Office Portfolo, ect) should be in comp.unix.sco or a sub-group of
comp.unix.sco.

Comp.unix.sco is a good start.  It would give us something that can be
built on if needed or desired.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Armbrust               |     uunet!pcssc!dma
PC Software Systems         |     Phone: (813)365-1162
2121 Cornell Street         |
Sarasota, FL 34237          |