New group comp.unix.sco

[Superuser]

In article <15 at grumbly.UUCP> root at grumbly.UUCP (Superuser) writes:
->In article <15292 at bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff at bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes:
->->Dick Dunn is exactly right, regardless of his employer.  We do not need
->->a separate SCO products newsgroup.  There are a number of classic
->->reasons for collecting articles in a newsgroup, but "because XYZ is the
->->vendor" is not a good one.  If SCO wants to start a support mailing list
->->they can and should.  In the meantime, topics should be grouped by
->->functionality, not nameplate.  Yes, crossposting is sometimes necessary
->->and appropriate.  That's what it was invented for!  It happens all the
->->time with all kinds of vendors' products.  SCO is nothing special.
->->
->->Keep in mind that Interactive sells other things too, as do many other
->->vendors.  If comp.unix.interactive were proposed, I would vote against
->->that too, and I would expect to see Dick Dunn's vote next to my own.
->->(Unless the vote counter did an alpha sort :-) )

Sorry if I duped.

What about comp.unix.aix, c.u.aux, c.u.cray, c.u.ultrix, c.u.MICROPORT

SCO has a bigger base than any of these, but thats not the reason people
want a sco group.  It is to cut down confusion - and there is confusion.

You don't have to subscribe!

SCO has no involvement with these groups - and it shouldn't, except to
read it and answer questions when they can.  That is a bad idea to have
a company sponsered newsgroup/newsletter.

rbd


-- 
 ///   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > 
 0 0   Richard Ducoty                               ..uunet!grumbly!root
  >    Capitola, Calif                                root at grumbly.com
 `