CALL FOR DISCUSSION comp.sys.3b1

[Bob Wilber]

Andy Fyfe writes:
>While I'm here, I'll give my views on the great newsgroup name change.  I
>suggested in another posting that the group should be comp.sys.att.3b1.
>My reasoning is the following:  the existence of equivalent machines (from
>Motorola, etc.) notwithstanding, the purpose of the newsgroup is primarily
>to support a particular AT&T machine.  This is reflected, if nowhere else,
>in the choice of "3b1" -- an AT&T designation -- to be used in the
>newsgroup name.  It seems strange to me to argue that the best name for
>the group is "3b1" while arguing that it is not appropriate to make the
>newsgroup a subgroup of comp.sys.att.  If there's a real concern that,
>say, Convergent machines will be left out if the newgroup is a subgroup of
>comp.sys.att, then maybe the name of choice should be comp.sys.safari.

Not only is comp.sys.3b1 four fewer letters to type than comp.sys.att.3b1, but
I note that Mac hackers have comp.sys.mac, not comp.sys.apple.mac; Amiga amigos
have comp.sys.amiga, not comp.sys.commodore.amiga.  Also, comp.sys.att is a
"leaf" node (i.e., one where articles appear) and while netnews does allow
leaf nodes to also have subnodes, that can cause administrative hassles.
Some people will want to get comp.sys.att but not comp.sys.3b1, and vice
versa.  They cover disjoint topics.  (Or will, when the need for cross posting
ends.)

Bob Wilber