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

[Kris A. Kugel]

Evidently I've been missing the articles supporting
comp.sys.att.3b1 instead of comp.sys.3b1.

I'd like to place a STRONG objection to comp.sys.att.3b1,
(or comp.sys.att.<anything>.)

1. AT&T did not manufacture the 3b1, convergent did.

2. AT&T does not support the 3b1.  AT&T does not even release
   some nice software packages that already exist and were written
   for the 3b1.  (there exists, for example, a troff package with
   a 3b1 screen previewer that will even work with 8-pin or 24-pin
   printers).  Although hardware upgrades and other such exist,
   they are entirely supplied by small-time independent organizations.

3. other convergent machines not sold under AT&T nameplate
   are compatable with the 3b1.  (a new machine is binary-compatable)

4. the 3b1 is not compatable with any other AT&T machine.  There's
   virtually no 3b1 bugs, disks, upgrades, graphics, etc.  that
   the 3b1 has in common with existing or past AT&T products.
   (except those that it has in common with other system v machines,
    which would be a bigger class than AT&T)

5. the 3b1 user's group is very tight, and well defined.  If a
   news site decided not to carry a high-volumen comp.sys.att,
   I'd rather they make a separate decision on whether to carry
   comp.sys.3b1.

6. as was mentioned before, there are already exist groups with
   names like comp.sys.commadore.amiga.  comp.sys.3b1 cannot be
   ruled out by lack of precidence.

                               Kris A. Kugel
                             ( 908 ) 842-2707
                {uunet,rutgers,att}!westmark!hico2!kak
                         {daver,ditka,zorch}!hico2!kak
                         internet: kak at hico2.westmark.com