comp.sys.3b1.*?

[Mark M Mehl]

dts at quad.sialis.com (David Sandberg) writes:
>In article <mehl.660126253 at judy.cs.iastate.edu> mehl at atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu writes:
>>	comp.sys.att.3b1   (since we already have comp.sys.att) and

>I don't greatly dislike this, but I like comp.sys.3b1 better.
>. . . AT&T orphaned this machine...
>support . . . comes from the group itself, rather than from
>the original company . . .

True, but newsgroups in the comp.sys.* hierarchy normally have a
manufacture's name in them whenever possible an AT&T is it.

>Also, the group is meant to cover machines from
>more manufacturers than just AT&T (the fabled Miniframe, for one

Well . . . auhhhh, this is a problem.  Someone suggested
comp.sys.unixpc earlier, but no one likes "pc".  Perhaps
comp.sys.unix-micro would work for a multi-vendor group, although
I would still prefer a vendor's name in a comp.sys.* group
(i.e. I like c.s.att.3b1 best).

If comp.sys.unix-micro does pass, what going to happen to
comp.sys.workstation?  Would there be plans to rename it to
comp.sys.unix-micro.super (or something)?

>>	comp.sources.unix.3b1  (since we already have c.s.unix)

>You'd get a "no" on that one . . .
>There are sources groups for various
>UNIX machines already, but not one of them is grouped underneath
>comp.sources.unix.

I withdraw my original suggestion; you are correct.  I'm assuming
general OS sources (for unix) would appear in c.s.unix anyway, so
the proposed c.s.3b1 group would be for assembler and low-level
sources not pertaining to unix.
--
 /\ Mark M Mehl, alias Superticker (Supertickler to some)
<><> Internet: mehl at atanasoff.cs.IAstate.edu
 \/ UUCP: {{mailrus,umix}!sharkey,uunet,rutgers!ksuvax1}!atanasoff!mehl
Disclaimer: You got to be kidding; who would want to claim anything I said?