X386 on AT&T lockup problem

[David Van Beveren]

In article <1991Apr14.022422.6177 at coyote.datalog.com> ejm at coyote.datalog.com (E.J. McKernan) writes:
>In article <1991Apr12.122901.379 at virtech.uucp> cpcahil at virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
>>
>>The amount of traffic related to X386 is picking up steadily and will
>>probably consume this newsgroup.  So, what do you think about putting
>>together a separate newsgroup: comp.unix.sysv386.x386 or comp.windows.x.x386
>>which is dedicated to this product?
>>
>>What do you think?
>
>Just what the doctor ordered!
>
>Comp.windows.x.x386 sounds like the name to go with.
>

How about a little more general:
            comp.windows.x.sysv386.
X386 is not the only sysv386 x-windows product. (Just the best :^) ) And there
are some issues that relate to more than X386.

That would take a lot of traffic from this group, and some from comp.windows.x. 
I am in favor of such a move.


-- 
David Van Beveren                           INTERNET: emisle!dvb at ism.isc.com
EIS ltd. Professional Software Services     UUCP:   ..uunet!emisle!dvb
voice: (818) 587-1247