comp.sys.3b1.*?

[David Sandberg]

In article <mehl.660126253 at judy.cs.iastate.edu> mehl at atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu writes:
>I do feel strongly about the name; let's try:
>	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.
As someone else said, AT&T orphaned this machine... most of the
support for it now comes from the group itself, rather than from
the original company (with the exception of a few persons from
thereabouts who deserve to be repeatedly patted on the back for
their efforts).  Also, the group is meant to cover machines from
more manufacturers than just AT&T (the fabled Miniframe, for one
example).

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

You'd get a "no" on that one from me - it would be contrary to
all existing practice.  There are sources groups for various
UNIX machines already, but not one of them is grouped underneath
comp.sources.unix.  I say we stick with comp.sources.3b1.

-- 
 \\         David Sandberg         \     ,=,       ,=,           \\
 //      dts at quad.sialis.com       /     | |uadric `=,ystems     //
 \\  uunet!umn-cs!sialis!quad!dts  \     `=\       `='           \\