comp.unix.sys5-intel

Chip Salzenberg chip at ateng.uucp
Fri Aug 26 02:45:42 AEST 1988


According to vixie at decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie):
>According to chip at ateng.uucp (Chip Salzenberg):
># Current volume does not warrant a '286-'386 split.  So, essentially, I'm
># suggesting that we replace comp.unix.microport with comp.unix.sys5-intel.
>
>This is not a good idea.  [...]  Partly because, even if no 286/386 split
>is appropriate, the group would be called
>	comp.unix.sys5.intel

What is really meant here is: "Paul think the group should be called..."

I have a reason for the hyphen:  An earlier posting described the trouble
resulting from an early proposal of "comp.unix.sys5.i286", which later
became comp.unix.microport.  Unless we are planning to migrate all
System V ports to comp.unix.sys5.<whatever>, we should avoid creating a
comp.unix.sys5 hierarchy.  (And what of dual ports, like Pyramid's OSx?)

So, if people want to split 286/386 traffic, I would suggest:
	comp.unix.xenix
	comp.unix.sys5-i286
	comp.unix.sys5-i386

Note that I am _not_ the vote collector.  I _do_ hope that this proposal
becomes one of the nominees for the final vote.

>Whatever you do, do not _ever_ try to steamroller something like this
>through.

Point taken.  Let's do it right.

-- 
Chip Salzenberg                <chip at ateng.uu.net> or <uunet!ateng!chip>
A T Engineering                My employer may or may not agree with me.
        You make me wanna break the laws of time and space
                    You make me wanna eat pork



More information about the Comp.unix.microport mailing list