Questions and Answers comp.unix.sco
Dave Armbrust
I was not able to set up a user called no on my Xenix/386 system because
it is only a 2 character user name. I had assumed that having a alias of
2 characters would pose the same problem. This is not the case as had
been pointed out to me by other users. I have now set up a forwarding
alias for no and for those users that want to send mail to n...@pcssc.com
instead of n...@pcssc.com you can now do this. If you would rather send
your yes vote to y...@pcssc.com instead of y...@pcssc.com you can do this
also. I hope these changes will resolve the objects to nay although my
instructions were clear how to vote. I was quite surprised that so many
people objected to my clear instructions.
Why was pcssc.uu.net was changed to pcssc.com?
After posting my first call to votes I was informed by a opponent to this
group that uu.net is intended to be use only by internal machines to
uunet. After changing it to pcssc.com I was flamed by my opponents for
changing it. Our sight is registered and either method seems to get here
fine. If pcssc.com is not more correct then pcssc.uu.net please send me
email and I will change it back.
Why comp.unix.sco instead of biz.sco?
The biz groups are for groups ran by the vendors themselves and is
normally moderated by the vendor. (I do realize that moderation is not a
requirement, please no flames). My intentions is to have this group be
for and by the users. I don't feel that a commercial group to serve SCO
commercial interest is in the best interest of SCO users.
Why comp.unix.sco instead of comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386?
There are currently several groups that SCO users are welcome to post to
Two of these groups are comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386. The
descriptions of the groups read as follows:
comp.unix.i386 - Versions of Unix running on Intel 80386-bases boxes
comp.unix.xenix - Discussions about the Xenix OS.
SCO users are welcome to post to either group. They are intended for
operating system related question. Posting not regarding the OS are may
also be posted here but are usually inappropriate in this groups.
There are two other groups that SCO Users are also welcome to post to,
they are:
comp.unix.questions - UNIX neophyte group.
comp.unix.wizards - Discussions, bug reports, and fixes on and for UNIX.
There are also other groups that can also be used for non-OS discussions.
To some it appears that this is enough groups and further division would
be detrimental. I and many others SCO users disagree and we feel that it
would be beneficial to SCO users to have a separate group. (This issue
has been HOTLY debated.)
The intention of comp.unix.sco is to have one groups that will encompass
all of the above for SCO users. In this new group discussions, questions,
bug reports, ect. regarding ALL SCO products can take place. This new
group is neither technical or non-technical, all posting are welcome.
This group comp.unix.sco can be used for simple questions or heavy
technical discussions. This group is not limited to discussions regarding
SCO Operating Systems (UNIX/XENIX). Posting regarding SCO applications
are welcome in this group. Even posting regarding SCO applications on
other venders operating systems may be posted here. This group will not
be owed or operated by SCO, rather this group is for and by the users of
SCO products.
Whose idea is this group SCO or Dave Armbrust?
The call to discussion and call to vote was started by myself, Dave
Armbrust. SCO did not suggest to me that I initiate these calls or votes.
SCO did not take part in the Call to Discussion. The idea was wholly my
own and I was encourage by other SCO users to issue a call for discussion.
Initially I was surprised by SCO lack of interest. I did not let this
discourage me from trying to start this group. This group is for and by
the users of SCO products not for SCO's commercial interest.
Is SCO in favor of this group?
Yes, personnel at SCO has since the call to vote expressed that they are
in favor of this group. They feel that this group will help them to
better support their customers that are members of the use-net community.
The following is the email I received from Doug Michels at SCO:
"I would be delighted to see a group of this sort created. It would
be a real service to SCO customers around the world and SCO would
enthusiastically support the activities of such a group in whatever
manner the group felt was appropriate and useful. It is difficult
to provide consistent responses and technical information with the
widely scattered postings and cross postings that occur now, but with
a focused group we think this could be accomplished in a positive
manner. Of course if the vote is negative we will continue to
support the net as best as we are able. Thank you for your effort
to make this happen." Doug Michels, Vice President, SCO
Is this group then intended to make up for SCO deficiencies in support?
No, I beleive SCO's support is second to none in the industry. But as is
so often the case with support, better can be provided. I believe that SCO
is interested in providing the best support that they can. This group is
just another way for them to improve on what they currently offer.
Why are so many people against this group?
Most the negative posting are from the same people that feel that they
need to express their opinions over and over again. They have various
reasons to be against this group but in general they do not want to change
the way thing are. The posting you see do not reflect the general
opinions of the net-users. When the votes are counted each person only
gets one vote but there is no limit to how many posting of their opinions
can be made. Only the votes will determine if this group is formed.
You will see this posting torn apart and criticized. You will see a few
stand up in my defence. This is their right to do this and I do not want
to restrict that right. This use-net is a great example of democracy in
action. Everyone can express their opinions freely but in the end it is
the votes that count. But as in any free society what you hear on the
'news' is not always the opinions of the general community.
Is it not improper for the vote taker to be so obviously for this group?
No, I also am free to express my opinions and reasons for this groups just
as my opponents are able to express why they may be against this group. I
will not let my feeling for this group affect my vote counting. At the
end of the voting process all votes will be posted enmasse and corrections
can be made. This serves as a good double check of my vote counting.
Sounds good, when will this group be formed?
This group will not be formed unless the call for vote passes. In order
for that to happen 67% of the voters must be in favor of this group. It
is not enough just to have a majority in favor of this group. If you
would like to have this group formed it is important that you vote. With
out your support this group will not be started. The polls will remain
open through the end of May.
What if I am against this group?
You may then vote against this group, all votes will be tallied and if
less then 67% are in favor of this group it will not be formed.
Why don't I just wait for the results from other net users?
If you do not have an opinion on this group then there is no reason to
vote. If you are for or against this group please let me know with a
vote. You may just respond to this posting with a clear statement of your
vote. No interim voting results will be posted until after the voting
period ends May 31st. At that point it will be too late to cast your
vote. Without your support this group will not be formed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Send yes votes to: y...@pcssc.com, y...@pcssc.com or d...@pcssc.com |
| Send no votes to: n...@pcssc.com, n...@pcssc.com or d...@pcssc.com |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Armbrust | uunet!pcssc!dma
PC Software Systems | Phone: (813)365-1162
2121 Cornell Street |
Sarasota, FL 34237 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter da Silva
> I was not able to set up a user called no on my Xenix/386 system because
> it is only a 2 character user name.
So do what other people have done and create "vote-yes" and "vote-no".
> After posting my first call to votes I was informed by a opponent to this
> group that uu.net is intended to be use only by internal machines to
> uunet.
Let's call a spade a spade. I sent you that mail because I just receieved a
draft of a form letter from UUNET. The letter basically said "The .uu.net
domain is only for UUNET machines. At some point in the future we will no
longer forward mail to this address". I thought you might want to know about
that ahead of time.
> Our sight is registered and either method seems to get here
> fine.
If your site is registered, then you should be using the .com entry. I will
be doing the same as soon as our domain registration comes through.
I wish the folks at UUNET had been a bit more on the ball about this.
Apparently they changed their policy a while back and forgot to tell anyone.
In any case they're taking care of the problem and all UUNET customers should
be informed pretty soon.
> Why comp.unix.sco instead of comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386?
> There are currently several groups that SCO users are welcome to post to
> Two of these groups are comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386. The
> descriptions of the groups read as follows:
> comp.unix.i386 - Versions of Unix running on Intel 80386-bases boxes
> comp.unix.xenix - Discussions about the Xenix OS.
> SCO users are welcome to post to either group. They are intended for
> operating system related question. Posting not regarding the OS are may
> also be posted here but are usually inappropriate in this groups.
What other postings would one be making? SCO is an operating systems house.
Applications software that runs under SCO UNIX also runs under all the other
UNIX boxes out there, and is just as appropriate (or inappropriate) in .i386
as in the suggested .sco group.
> There are also other groups that can also be used for non-OS discussions.
Make that *should*. What subject matter is it that is appropriate for .sco
but not for .i386, .xenix, or (say) comp.databases?
> The intention of comp.unix.sco is to have one groups that will encompass
> all of the above for SCO users.
*Which* SCO users? Why should SCO Xenix users have to plow through UNIX junk?
Why should SCO UNIX users care about Xenix?
> Why are so many people against this group?
Because it's a bad idea.
> Most the negative posting are from the same people that feel that they
> need to express their opinions over and over again.
The same might be said of the supporters of comp.unix.sco. When people keep
posting messages containing the same invalid arguments again and again, it
becomes necessary to refute them again and again.
I'd also like to point out that continued politicking after the call for votes
is considered inappropriate. Discussion in news.groups is one thing, but
blatant requests for votes broadcast all over the net are a no-no.
I got .i386 passed without any such shenanigans. If .sco is a good idea, you
will be able to do the same.
> They have various
> reasons to be against this group but in general they do not want to change
> the way thing are.
Right. That's why we're calling for a wholesale redesign of the comp.unix
hierarchy. We're so scared of change we need to change everything to prove it.
Finally, directing followups to "poster" is a cheap trick. Politicking for a
group after the call for votes is a cheap trick. This message was crossposted
to comp.unix.xenix, comp.unix.i386, comp.unix.questions, comp.unix.wizards, and
news.groups. What? You forgot comp.std.unix, comp.misc, comp.arch, and half
a dozen other vaguely relevant groups...
--
_--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <pe...@ficc.uu.net>
/ \ 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com>
\_.--._/ Disclaimer: commercial solicitation by email to this address
v is acceptable.
Evan Leibovitch
>Why n...@pcssc.com instead of n...@pcssc.com?
>
>I was not able to set up a user called no on my Xenix/386 system because
>it is only a 2 character user name. I had assumed that having a alias of
>2 characters would pose the same problem.
The original point was your complaint that had comp.unix.sco been
created, you would have found this out. I fail to realize why
comp.unix.xenix would not have served that purpose.
>Why comp.unix.sco instead of biz.sco?
>
>The biz groups are for groups ran by the vendors themselves and is
>normally moderated by the vendor.
This is not the case at all. Not ONE of the biz groups is moderated. The
purpose of the biz groups is to allow vendor-specific discussions,
whether initiated by users, resellers or the vendor itself.
>SCO users are welcome to post to either [comp.unix.xenix or
>comp.unix.i386]. They are intended for operating system related
>question. Posting not regarding the OS are may
>also be posted here but are usually inappropriate in this groups.
>[...]
>The intention of comp.unix.sco is to have one groups that will encompass
>all of the above for SCO users. In this new group discussions, questions,
>bug reports, ect. regarding ALL SCO products can take place.
I would agree that there is no clearly apparent newsgroup for either
spreadsheets or MS-DOS-under-Unix. While I have not seen much traffic
from anyone on spreadsheets, there may be enough traffic on VP/ix and
Merge to justify its own group. But that's a separate discussion.
Should people using SCO VP/ix post to a different group than all other
users of VP/ix? Do the SCO users not have an interest in reaching the
largest pool of users, whether they're using SCO's version or someone
else's?
Would you have people with problems with SCO FoxBase post questions in
the sco group? Or, would you acknowledge that comp.database is read by
people from Ashton-Tate and people familiar with non-SCO versions of
FoxBase, as well as those who use SCO FoxBase. Present news-reading
software has ample mechanisms to allow one to ignore discussions one
isn't interested in.
Are questions on SCO Elan supposed to go to the sco group, when
the expertise in this field (including net.readers from Elan itself) is
clearly in comp.text?
If you have a problem with SCO TCP/IP talking to other systems, where
would you get the best response - from the catch-all sco group, or from
the group(s) specializing in tcp-ip?
Even for Xenix itself, why do SCO users have different goals from users
of Tandy Xenix or IBM Xenix?
There are hundreds of other exmples of this point: Whose interest is
served when SCO users segregate themselves from the rest of the net?
>Is SCO in favor of this group?
>
>Yes, personnel at SCO has since the call to vote expressed that they are
>in favor of this group. They feel that this group will help them to
>better support their customers that are members of the use-net community.
>The following is the email I received from Doug Michels at SCO:
>
> "I would be delighted to see a group of this sort created. It would
> be a real service to SCO customers around the world and SCO would
> enthusiastically support the activities of such a group in whatever
> manner the group felt was appropriate and useful.
Actually, it is this element of the discussion that saddens me the most.
SCO, if it were indeed dedicated to uniting the Unix industry rather
than further fragmenting it, should have been the first to try to talk
you out of a separate group.
Instead, their sales flaks and management would love to keep people
thinking that their Unix is not, at its base, the same as others' 386
Unix. Based on mail I have received from people at SCO, I assure you the
view is not unanimous within the company.
The company is nothing more than a value-added reseller for Unix and
applications, and on rare occasions a developer of original products.
While its value-added is often significant, its role in the marketplace
is no different from Interactive, ESIX, etc. except for its size and
parentage.
>Why are so many people against this group?
>
>Most the negative posting are from the same people that feel that they
>need to express their opinions over and over again. They have various
>reasons to be against this group but in general they do not want to change
>the way thing are.
This is the third posting from Dave in which an otherwise reasoned
opinion degenerates near the end to personal attacks and paranoia.
There have been reasoned opinions stated on both sides of the issue. If
you choose to see those opposed to the group as merely net.luddites,
that is your option. But if you take a close look, you will notice that
you too can be grouped along with those who "need to express their
opinions again and again". How many nearly-identical postings have you
made, defending the group, SINCE the call for votes? If there were
points to be made, you should have made them during the discussion
period.
>Is it not improper for the vote taker to be so obviously for this group?
>
>No, I also am free to express my opinions and reasons for this groups just
>as my opponents are able to express why they may be against this group.
That's not the point. The purpose behind separate discussion and voting
periods is to allow for a voting period without electioneering.
There have been a number of tactics in this vote, none of which on their
own would be much cause for complaint, but which together bring the
fairness of this campaign into question:
- Setting "Followup-To: poster" on your articles to discourage comment;
- Having yes votes to be mailed to "yes" but no votes to "nay";
- Not posting an interim voters' list;
- Telling people against the group not to vote;
- Shameless electioneering during the voting period;
- Indulging in personal attacks on the peoposal's critics;
- Posting other people's private e-mail in support;
It is good to see that at least a few of these tactics have been
changed. But not all.
Although as the group proposer you should obviously be in favour of what
you're proposing, once you become a vote-TAKER you have to switch to
being objective, and let the votes fall where they may. If there are
more (different) arguments to be made for the group, then that means you
cut off the discussion period too soon.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
ev...@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / Moderator - rec.arts.erotica
"I will walk where no man has never been!" - The Ultimate Warrior
Chip Salzenberg
According to d...@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust):
>In this new group discussions, questions, bug reports, ect.
>regarding ALL SCO products can take place.
This proposed charter is both too narrow (only one vendor: SCO) and
too broad (all sorts of software: operating systems, word processing,
databases, etc, etc).
>Is SCO in favor of this group?
Who cares? Usenet doesn't belong to SCO.
>The following is the email I received from Doug Michels at SCO:
Namedropping will *not* help.
>Most the negative posting are from the same people that feel that
>they need to express their opinions over and over again.
Mr. Armbrust here presumes to explain my motives as well as the
motives of other people who object to comp.unix.sco. In the process,
he has provided a real-life example of the pot calling the kettle
black.
>They have various reasons to be against this group but in general
>they do not want to change the way thing are.
This assertion is false. I, for example, am currently collecting
opinions on a general reorganization of the comp.unix.* hierarchy.
I am doing so because several groups are badly named (comp.unix.i386,
comp.unix.microport), and because there are some obvious groups
(comp.unix.admin, comp.unix.misc) that could be created. Given this
activity, I hardly fit Mr. Armbrust's description of a reactionary.
[Note, however, that the comp.unix reorganization has been put on hold
until the comp.unix.sco issue has been resolved. I do not wish my
proposals to become enmeshed in the comp.unix.sco debacle.]
>The posting you see do not reflect the general opinions of the
>net-users.
Now Mr. Armbrust is a mind reader? I think not.
>You will see this posting torn apart and criticized.
You got that right, Bo.
>This use-net is a great example of democracy in action.
Mr. Armbrust does not understand the Usenet at all. A democracy is,
ideally, a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Usenet is a network of the owners, by the administrators and for the
users. In a democracy, the people are the eventual basis of all
power. Power in Usenet comes from owning and/or administering a
machine. The difference is obvious to anyone familiar with Usenet.
+-------------------------------------------------+
| Comp.unix.sco must go. This is non-negotiable. |
+-------------------------------------------------+
The arguments against comp.unix.sco are not as easily dismissed as Mr.
Armbrust would wish. Comp.unix.sco would be a confused mix of
operating systems, development systems and applications with only one
thing in common: the "SCO" name on the boxes they came in. This is
the Usenet of the future?
If comp.unix.i386 is too crowded, there are more intelligent ways to
split it. If particular SCO applications have no appropriate
newsgroups, such can be created to cover broad application classes.
But comp.unix.sco is *not* the answer.
I urge: Just say "Nay" to comp.unix.sco.
The vote adresses are <n...@pcssc.com> (Nay) or <y...@pcssc.com> (Yes).
--
Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT <chip%t...@ateng.com>, <uunet!ateng!tct!chip>
Dave Armbrust
|
|> Why comp.unix.sco instead of comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386?
|
|> There are currently several groups that SCO users are welcome to post to
|> Two of these groups are comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386. The
|> descriptions of the groups read as follows:
|
|> comp.unix.i386 - Versions of Unix running on Intel 80386-bases boxes
|> comp.unix.xenix - Discussions about the Xenix OS.
|
|> SCO users are welcome to post to either group. They are intended for
|> operating system related question. Posting not regarding the OS are may
|> also be posted here but are usually inappropriate in this groups.
|
|What other postings would one be making? SCO is an operating systems house.
|Applications software that runs under SCO UNIX also runs under all the other
|UNIX boxes out there, and is just as appropriate (or inappropriate) in .i386
|as in the suggested .sco group.
|
|> There are also other groups that can also be used for non-OS discussions.
|
|Make that *should*. What subject matter is it that is appropriate for .sco
|but not for .i386, .xenix, or (say) comp.databases?
The point is that comp.unix.i386 and comp.unix.xenix is for OS related
questions. Comp.unix.sco is not limitted to this and other application
posting will be encourage here. It is not important that some of the
applictions that SCO sells are not written by SCO the posting will still be
welcome (i.e. vpix). There are groups that can be used for some questions
regarding applications but basically they are all over the place. This group
allows one place that all these posting can be made. This is good for the
net and less confussing in general.
|*Which* SCO users? Why should SCO Xenix users have to plow through UNIX junk?
|Why should SCO UNIX users care about Xenix?
Why should SCO users have to look all over the place for things they are
interested in? This would be one place that technical and non-technical
users can come together.
| This message was crossposted
|to comp.unix.xenix, comp.unix.i386, comp.unix.questions, comp.unix.wizards, and
|news.groups. What? You forgot comp.std.unix, comp.misc, comp.arch, and half
|a dozen other vaguely relevant groups...
Ahh, now you are getting the point. SCO users and postings are all over the
place, that is why we need this group.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter da Silva
of stuff you've already read...
> This group
> allows one place that all these posting can be made. This is good for the
> net and less confussing in general.
By the same logic we only need one group... net.all.
> |*Which* SCO users? Why should SCO Xenix users have to plow through UNIX junk?
> |Why should SCO UNIX users care about Xenix?
> Why should SCO users have to look all over the place for things they are
> interested in?
Uh, because they're interested in different things?
Maybe I should call for a comp.unix.compaq, for a single place where all Compaq
owners can get together and discuss UNIX. It makes about as much sense.
Paul Sutcliffe Jr.
So Dave's idea is that all people with a common interest in SCO
products should post to comp.unix.sco. In so doing, those people
will be able to *easily* get the SCO-related information they want.
Dave must not subscribe to comp.sys.ibm.pc. :-)
- paul (I voted nay)
INTERNET: pa...@devon.lns.pa.us | If life's a bitch, then
UUCP: ...!rutgers!devon!paul | we must be her puppies.
Frank Korzeniewski
#In article <2...@pcssc.UUCP> d...@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes:
#> After posting my first call to votes I was informed by a opponent to this
#> group that uu.net is intended to be use only by internal machines to
#> uunet.
#
#Let's call a spade a spade. I sent you that mail because I just receieved a
#draft of a form letter from UUNET. The letter basically said "The .uu.net
#domain is only for UUNET machines. At some point in the future we will no
#longer forward mail to this address". I thought you might want to know about
#that ahead of time.
*YOU*, the person who hardly ever includes an attribution in a posting,
wants to call a spade a spade. How novel.
#
#> Why comp.unix.sco instead of comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386?
#
#> There are currently several groups that SCO users are welcome to post to
#> Two of these groups are comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.i386. The
#> descriptions of the groups read as follows:
#
#> comp.unix.i386 - Versions of Unix running on Intel 80386-bases boxes
#> comp.unix.xenix - Discussions about the Xenix OS.
#
#> SCO users are welcome to post to either group. They are intended for
#> operating system related question. Posting not regarding the OS are may
#> also be posted here but are usually inappropriate in this groups.
#
#What other postings would one be making? SCO is an operating systems house.
#Applications software that runs under SCO UNIX also runs under all the other
#UNIX boxes out there, and is just as appropriate (or inappropriate) in .i386
#as in the suggested .sco group.
Why for all the *OTHER* SCO products. SCO Professional, SCO FoxBASE+,
SCO Lyrix, SCO Integra, etc. etc...
You seem to class anyone that produces software as an operating system
company. The rest of us have a slightly narrower definition of
an operating system company.
#
#> There are also other groups that can also be used for non-OS discussions.
#
#Make that *should*. What subject matter is it that is appropriate for .sco
#but not for .i386, .xenix, or (say) comp.databases?
Postings on SCO products outside of their operating systems of course.
But I bet you knew the answer to that as well as I.
#
#> The intention of comp.unix.sco is to have one groups that will encompass
#> all of the above for SCO users.
#
#*Which* SCO users? Why should SCO Xenix users have to plow through UNIX junk?
#Why should SCO UNIX users care about Xenix?
*ALL* SCO users! Why should SCO users have to plow thru ISC and everybody
else just to get info on SCO operating systems. And then have to plow
thru comp.databases to get a bit of info on SCO Ingegra. And then have
to plow thru yet more news groups for other SCO products.
#
#> Why are so many people against this group?
#
#Because it's a bad idea.
*NO!* Its a good idea. It makes it more convenient for a significant
group of people to use the net. Should we undo the mac group breakup
because it fragments the people looking for just info on the mac?
#
#> Most the negative posting are from the same people that feel that they
#> need to express their opinions over and over again.
#
#The same might be said of the supporters of comp.unix.sco. When people keep
#posting messages containing the same invalid arguments again and again, it
#becomes necessary to refute them again and again.
Talk about blindness. People think *YOUR* arguments are invalid!
So according to your logic it is necessary that they post again and
again to refute you. My only hope is that you post so much that
you break your keyboard!
#
#I'd also like to point out that continued politicking after the call for votes
#is considered inappropriate. Discussion in news.groups is one thing, but
#blatant requests for votes broadcast all over the net are a no-no.
The net-cop has spoken. But how do you differenciate between politicking
and merely informing people about the facts under discussion. It seems
to me that if *YOU* consider it politicking then it must be.
#
#I got .i386 passed without any such shenanigans. If .sco is a good idea, you
#will be able to do the same.
Yes and you yourself admitted what a stupid mistake you made in picking
that name. And how you just finally ran the vote to cut off the endless
discussion. How does it feel to be on the other side of the fence?
#
#> They have various
#> reasons to be against this group but in general they do not want to change
#> the way thing are.
#
#Right. That's why we're calling for a wholesale redesign of the comp.unix
#hierarchy. We're so scared of change we need to change everything to prove it.
No, you just want to control it. Anything that happens outside of *YOUR*
control is supposed to be evil and malicious.
#
#Finally, directing followups to "poster" is a cheap trick.
Great, tell that to Gene Spafford. I am sure he will want to correct
all his postings to news.newusers. All of which do exactly that.
# Politicking for a
#group after the call for votes is a cheap trick.i
Of course politicking against it is ok in your book.
Frank Korzeniewski (ser...@well.sf.ca)
Peter da Silva
flames and flames and flames and flames...
Didn't you just tell someone else to take personal attacks out of news.groups?
I asked: what else goes in c.u.sco?
> Why for all the *OTHER* SCO products. SCO Professional, SCO FoxBASE+,
> SCO Lyrix, SCO Integra, etc. etc...
The other third-party stuff that SCO repackages?
SCO is a value added reseller. They sell support and enhancements to other
people's products. Their product line is extremely diverse, and one would
expect discussion about their product line to be similarly diverse. This means
that the majority of the messages in an SCO newsgroup will be simply noise
for the majority of readers.
Remember back a year or so, when all the Unix/386 discussion was going on in
comp.unix.xenix? Well, that's what comp.unix.sco is gonna be like.
> #Why should SCO UNIX users care about Xenix?
> *ALL* SCO users! Why should SCO users have to plow thru ISC and everybody
> else just to get info on SCO operating systems.
For the same reason that people running UNIX on Compaqs find it useful to
read a group shared with people running UNIX on Dell computers. Because they
are using basically the same operating system.
You also asked: why comp.unix.apps? Why a group for apps for a particular O/S?
Why a group for apps from a particular vendor?
> Should we undo the mac group breakup
> because it fragments the people looking for just info on the mac?
Did they create a comp.sys.mac.microsoft, a comp.sys.mac.claris, etc...?
The remainder is kind of marginal stuff. I'd recommend most folks just skip
it. I apologise in advance for this, but it's not going to escalate further...
I just don't feel right leaving this stuff unanswered, but I'm not going to
answer it twice.
Followups to the remainder of this message will be ignored.
[how do you differentiate between politicking and presenting information]
Well, I'd call saying "If you want to vote NO, don't vote at all" politicking.
[comp.unix.i386]
> Yes and you yourself admitted what a stupid mistake you made in picking
> that name.
Hmm. I said "well, the name probably isn't ideal but since two previous votes
for the group had failed I went ahead with it rather than watch this happen a
third time". Yeh, I guess you could interpret things that way.
> And how you just finally ran the vote to cut off the endless
> discussion. How does it feel to be on the other side of the fence?
I don't know. You tell me.
> Of course politicking against it is ok in your book.
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
I shan't followup to your inevitable followup to this message. If you want to
discuss this in Email, be my guest.
--
`-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <pe...@ficc.uu.net>
'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com>
@FIN Commercial solicitation *is* accepted by email to this address.
Dave Armbrust
>In article <17...@well.sf.ca.us> ser...@well.sf.ca.us (Frank Korzeniewski)
>
>> else just to get info on SCO operating systems.
>
>For the same reason that people running UNIX on Compaqs find it useful to
>read a group shared with people running UNIX on Dell computers. Because they
>are using basically the same operating system.
>
But to make users that are interested in only comp.unix.sco or comp.unix.i386
or not interested in OS stuff read everything is not the right answer.
No kill files DO NOT work. Alot of the posting do not even mention the flavor
of the OS. If I can not figure out WHO'S UNIX IS IT how in the world is
my news reader going to be able to do this?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
serra
> Why for all the *OTHER* SCO products. SCO Professional, SCO FoxBASE+,
> SCO Lyrix, SCO Integra, etc. etc...
> You seem to class anyone that produces software as an operating system
> company. The rest of us have a slightly narrower definition of
> an operating system company.
>
The name comp.unix.sco is different from comp.sco.
Benedetto Serra