comp.unix.sco alternative

[Bill Kennedy]

In article <282 at bahamut.fsc.com>, jim at bahamut.fsc.com (James O'Connor) writes:
> It just dawned on me, after reading Chip Salzenberg's statement about where
> the real Usenet power lies (i.e. with the owners and administrators of the
> machines that Usenet flows to/through),

Agreed, 100%  There's no obligation on the part of any site to carry any
group just as there's no obligation for any user to read all groups.  I've
stated my opposition to comp.unix.sco, and that isn't the point of this
follow-up.  Those of us who do not want to lose the collective wisdom of
SCO UNIX people can help each other by encouraging them to read and
contribute to comp.unix.i386.  We can decline to carry or propagate
comp.unix.sco if the vote succeeds.  That just made some people angry,
but that's neither the intent nor the point.

> that if there REALLY are many people
> who want to see a catchall SCO newsgroup (or groups), that there should
> be plenty of people willing to take the time to set up thier machines to
> accept a separate "sco" hierarchy.

If this site or those it feeds had interest in a vendor unique news group
we most assuredly would carry it.  I'm puzzled as to why no one has (yet)
proposed a mailing list.  That could get as vendor unique and as commercial
(no one has suggested that the proposed group is commercial) as the members
want and usenet at large is no better or worse for it.  I subscribe to some
mailing lists and coordinate one.  Little of the mailing list traffic that
I see would be of much interest to usenet at large, but it's sure interesting
to the mailing lists.

> The creation of a separate heirarchy, and its success, would definitely
> prove to us doubters that a sco-specific group has merits.

And the subscribers to a mailing list can be used as `yes' votes for
the creation of a newsgroup.

> Personally, as the one with the power on "tiamat" (and I feed several other
> sites these days), I wouldn't pick up an SCO heirarchy.

Ditto for me, ditto for ssbn and its neighbors.  Moreover, I'm reluctant to
encourage the flight of SCO UNIX users just because the group has three
familiar characters in the name.  I've seen no reluctance on the part of .i386
to listen to the questions and contributions about SCO UNIX, nor have I seen
volume, flameage, or noise inflation that could be attributable to SCO users.

> I know the people
> who really know Unix, Xenix, or whatever we call it (I wonder if Bo knows
> Unix? :-), and its applications, are going to be posting in other places.

Indeed they will.  The volume in .i386 won't diminish, nor will the signal
to noise ratio change.  Articles that are not 100% SCO UNIX unique (how many
of those are there?) will be cross posted to .sco and .i386.  I cite another
pair of groups as an existing example; comp.sys.att and the unix-pc heirarchy.
The unix-pc groups aren't as well propagated as comp.sys.att so the UNIX-PC
stuff is almost always posted both places.

> ------------- 
> James B. O'Connor			Work:	jim at tiamat.fsc.com
> Data Processing Manager  		Play:   jim at bahamut.fsc.com
> Ahlstrom Filtration, Inc.		UUCP:	uunet!tiamat!jim

I think that Jim is on the right track if SCO users want their own heirarchy.
Start one like unix-pc.  Personally, I think a mailing list might be in order.
Speaking for this site and those it feeds, we're not interested in any
fragmentation of .i386; but if the SCO users want it, there's Jim's suggestion
and mine.
-- 
Bill Kennedy  usenet      {texbell,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill
              internet    bill at ssbn.WLK.COM   or attmail!ssbn!bill