comp.sys.3b1.*?

[Floyd Davidson]

In article <36335 at cup.portal.com> thad at cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes:
>das at trac2000.ueci.com (David Snyder) in <942 at trac2000.ueci.com> writes:
>
>	I agree 100%.  We MUST get rid of the reference to "unix-pc".
>
>Hmmm.  One person during our AT&T Users' Group meeting this evening shared
>his thoughts about the matter, and he presented a compelling case to NOT
>give up the "UNIXPC" name because then the 8088/8086/80286/80386/80486 users
>would snatch up "UNIXPC" for themselves and then suffer massive infusions
>of cross-postings by US, whose machines are labelled "AT&T  UNIXPC" !  :-)
>
   [ statements perceived (:-) as fact deleted ]
>
>Now for some of MY opinions:
>
>1) the number of installed machines and whether they are in current production
>   is irrelevant.  There are more 3B1/UNIXPC/PC7300 systems in the world today
>   than NeXT machines, yet the NeXT users have their comp.sys.next newsgroup
>   because they shared an interest, petitioned for a group, and voted it in.
>
>   I see a VERY large (and GROWING) interest in the UNIXPC and that interest
>   needs to be served by a reliable and a focused newsgroup.  Evidence grows
>   daily the unix-pc.* newsgroup is not well-distributed despite all the good
>   intentions of those who wish it to be so.

The interest is what is significant.  As measured by the volume and
variety of postings, it deserves better distribution.

>
>2) separation of UNIXPC-related source from the general discussions seems a
>   good thing, because it's my observation that any newsgroup containing the
>  [ ... ]

I see no valid argument against that.

>
>3) as for a moderated *.sources, my feeling is we propose whatever it takes
>   to assure a vote victory.  Should be NO problem!  The last posting to
>   comp.sources.misc was Oct 14, asking for a new moderator, hence the
>   incredibly increased traffic in alt.sources (which is NOT well-distributed).
>
>   My preference is for NO moderation since the inclusion of a moderator in

I agree on both points:  Lets do what will work to get it going, but I'd
rather it not be moderated.  Why bother, considering the relatively small
amount of traffic.  Odd off-topic postings may be a problem, but it
will never be significant enough to warrant the effort to moderate it.

> [ ... ]
>4) there should be only one "group" which combines all of the existing
>   unix-pc.general, unix-pc.bugs, unix-pc.uucp, and unix-pc.test
>
>   It appears we all read ALL the stuff anyway, so a SINGLE, central location
>   appears to be a logical change which also reduces newsgroup "clutter".

I see no argument against that.

>
>5) so now we focus our attention on what the <???> in comp.sys.<???> and
>   comp.sources.<???> should be named.
>
>   My belief is the choice for <???> should be orthogonal in the sense that a
>   comp.sys.FOOBAR would have a corresponding comp.sources.FOOBAR.  Yes, this
>  [ ... ]
>   This decision is NOT easy since there really is a family of related systems
>   for which the <???> will/would be a valid forum.  As others have stated,
>   the related systems include the s4, safari, Miniframe, Motorola 6300 and
>   Motorola 6350, UNIXPC, PC7300, 3B1, and there may be others ... someone
>  [ ... ]
>   So, any "7300", "PC7300" or "7000" as "<???>" is OUT.  Period.

Amen.

>   And recent posts have shown that owners/users of Motorola and Miniframe
>   systems are NOT ignorant and have found "our" present hierarchy.  And
>  [... ]

This is a very good point.  I don't think the name  needs to indicate 
clearly and precisely  what the group covers.  Those looking for this info 
KNOW what they are looking for.  By the same token, the name should NOT
attract those who *don't* know what they are looking for.

>   This leaves us with the other extant identifiers "UNIXPC" and "3B1".  The
>   BYTE Magazine system review (May 1986) was headlined "The AT&T UNIXPC".
>   All documents of any consequence refer to the system as UNIXPC.  All use
>   I've seen of "3B1" has been only in this newsgroup, though I often refer
>   to the system as "3B1/UNIXPC/PC7300" in other newsgroups.  Some people have
>   told me they LIKE the "snob" appeal of "3B1" since it appears to be a REAL
>   computer contrasted with a "PC";  different strokes for different folks.
>
>   My suggestion is we KEEP the label "UNIXPC" since it clearly identifies the
>   system as a desktop UNIX workstation, in fact, one of the first affordable
>   ones, and NOT let the label drop to be picked up later by some other
>   special interest group.  I haven't seen any great volume of material
>   posted to unix-pc.* from the DOS-based world, thus I don't perceive any
>   problem since I'm sure many have chastised the "offenders" via email.

NO. NO. NO.  Total disagreement.

The problem with putting 'pc' in the name is bad now.  I find it annoying,
and it appears many people do.  It is going to get worse.  And worse,
and worse again.   It is never going to get better.  That is a fact of 
life.  Way up at the top Thad references concern about Intel oriented
folks "snatching" up the title UNIXPC if we let it go.  Hell, its gone.
Forget it.  Lets just save ourselves the confusion and dump it.

Who cares!  And the same applies to 3b1 or 7300 or att in the name.
If it is going to cause confusion, dump it.  I don't give a rats ass
what kind of perceived snob appeal any of it has.  That is all in
the eye of the beholder, and differs for each of us.  It is not
important.

Name it in such a way that it reduces the confusion.  No
reference to 'PC' is worth it.  '7300' isn't too clear either.
'3b1' seems the best thing suggested, but I'd certainly go along
with anything better.  Just that I haven't thought of or heard
of anything better yet.

>
>   So, in summary, I'm proffering:
>
>	comp.sys.unixpc, and
>	comp.sources.unixpc

I would vote no on that, but yes to almost anything else.  I'll
vote no on *any* name with 'pc' in it.

Floyd

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson                             floyd at hayes.ims.alaska.edu
Salcha, AK 99714                    paycheck connection to Alascom, Inc.
 When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry.