comp.sys.3b1.*?

[Thad P Floryan]

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" !  :-)

There are some things about which everyone seems in agreement:

1) some major backbone sites such as H-P Labs (Palo Alto) do NOT forward the
   present unix-pc.* hierarchy, causing distribution problems for many.  As
   to what they do forward, much material has absolutely NO benefit for H-P
   (such as the alt.sex.pictures, the humor groups, etc.), so the statements
   attributed to their site administrator are not self-consistent.  Go figure.
   As Brian suggested, some sites are simply NOT administered properly.

2) though there are many generous offers providing feeds of unix-pc.*, for
   many potential recipients that offer entails long-distance calls ($$$).

3) mainstream newsgroups appear to be forwarded anyplace with no problems.

4) the problem is NOT limited to unix-pc.*   I've received numerous emails
   over the past 12 months asking about the "u3b.*" newsgroups (for 3B2s),
   the presence of which I only casually mentioned in other postings.  So
   THEY are having distribution problems, too.  The way I see it, people
   who aren't receiving newsgroups don't know what they're missing and thus
   don't complain.  Kinda reminds me of how certain "Eastern bloc" countries
   would control their people by keeping them ignorant.  KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

And there some things about which the opinions are divided:

1) the "name" of the new newsgroup(s)

2) the hierarchy of the new group

3) the location (and possible moderation) of source postings of the new group

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.

2) separation of UNIXPC-related source from the general discussions seems a
   good thing, because it's my observation that any newsgroup containing the
   letters "*source*" enjoys both a longer expiry time and automatic archiving.

   An established area already exists (comp.sources.*) and the inclusion of an
   area for the UNIXPC makes sense.  It's my feeling there will be more there
   than in, for example, comp.sources.mac (since PORTAL keeps *sources* online
   a l-o-n-g time, I just checked that newsgroup: only one (1) posting, and
   it's dated October 8; the present state of unix-pc.sources on PORTAL
   comprises 39 "collection" entries still online dating from Aug.8 to Nov.28)

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
   the distribution chain increases the time-delay for what "may" often be a
   critical need (much like my "extra drains in the pipe" example :-)

   "Kwik 'n dirty" sources such as my recent {send;pass;recv} would continue
   to be in the general discussion newsgroup because the sources were only
   incidental.

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".

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
   is not quite the existing scheme of things, but just because someone else
   screwed up does not mean we should continue the SNAFU; let's show them we
   can do it RIGHT.

   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
   from CT or UNISYS/NCG would have to fill in the blanks here.

   For me, the issue is clouded even further since it IS one OEM who actually
   manufactured all the above systems, and whose current product line *IS*
   upward compatible.  I've run 3B1 binary executables directly on the CT
   MightyFrame (a 68020 machine), and the UNISYS 4040 (their 68040 box) will
   also run the same executables.

   Regarding names/numbers, Amdahl has a new line of 7300 UNIX mainframes, and
   AT&T's new line (mfd by Pyramid) is called the 7000-series.  Starts to
   get confusing, eh?  :-)

   So, any "7300", "PC7300" or "7000" as "<???>" is OUT.  Period.

   And recent posts have shown that owners/users of Motorola and Miniframe
   systems are NOT ignorant and have found "our" present hierarchy.  And
   please note my use of the word "ignorant."  Contrast the material found
   in "our" newsgroup and in comp.sys.att with the oft-times utter bilge and
   garbage in many of the present "mainstream" groups and any sane person
   would conclude that "we" have more "rights" to better distribution than
   those other groups.  A sobering thought, no?

   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.

   So, in summary, I'm proffering:

	comp.sys.unixpc, and
	comp.sources.unixpc

   and also for the archive name at osu-cis to be changed from "att7300" to
   be whatever finally gets voted and approved.

Thad Floryan [ thad at cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]