comp.sys.3b1? (was Re: Monthly posting about Unix-PC networ

[Karl Swartz]

In article <1990Nov16.141504.5463 at dbk.uucp> david at dbk.uucp (David Kozinn) writes:
>In article <35955 at cup.portal.com> thad at cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes:
>>Either *.3b1.* or *.7300.* or even *.pc7300.* would be reasonable alternatives.
>>Beginning with a digit means the group also appears at the head of the list!

Beginning with a digit raised a flag at first pause, but I remembered
that this is only a problem for names of news hierarchies -- changing
unix-pc to 3b1 (e.g. 3b1.general) wouldn't work.  But comp.sys.3b1 is
fine.

There must be at least one non-digit in each piece of the name though,
meaning comp.sys.7300 is not acceptable.

>From reading these postings, it seems to me that most of us are in
>agreement that using 3b1 instead of unix-pc is A Good Thing.

I certainly agree with that.  And I suspect 3b1 is better than 7300 or
pc7300 -- some people may confuse the latter with 6300 and again think
Intel garbage, while most 3b2 (and other 3b*) people know enough to
know that a 3b1 is a different critter.

*IF* there is a change, my vote goes for the *.3b1.* naming scheme.

-- 
Karl Swartz			 |INet	kls at ditka.chicago.com
1-408/223-1308			 |UUCP	{uunet,decwrl}!daver!ditka!kls
"I never let my schooling get in |
the way of my education."(Twain) |Snail	1738 Deer Creek Ct., San Jose CA 95148