NO on comp.sys.att.3b1 (yes on comp.sys.3b1)

[Andy Fyfe]

In article <1990Dec7.174855.23824 at ccad.uiowa.edu> emcguire at ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire) writes:
>You don't think the machine is very important, and you conclude that it
>ought therefore to be correspondingly lower in the hierarchy?

Not quite.  The 3b1 is a single machine for all practical purposes.  It
is not a line of related computers.  It hasn't been produced for years.
It's unlikely to ever have a successor.  This makes it fundamentally
different from, say, a Mac, NeXT, or Amiga.

The 3b1 is a particular AT&T machine.  The question is why is the 3b1 so
very important that is should be place at the top of the hierarchy, rather
than under comp.sys.att?  Why bother to have a heirarchy at all if every
individual machine can go directly under comp.sys?

Andy Fyfe					andy at cs.caltech.edu