Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!mips!mips!sdd.hp.com!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: time for comp.unix.bsd.386
Message-ID: <1992Aug23.183947.3591@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT)
References: <34254@hoptoad.uucp> <1992Aug22.130620.15015@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Aug23.052605.14262@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 18:39:47 GMT
Lines: 51
In article <1992Aug23.052605.14262@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> comrade@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Peter Cooper) writes:
>jiu1@husc9.harvard.edu (Haibin Jiu) writes:
>
>>In article <34254@hoptoad.uucp> brendan@cygnus.com writes:
>>>
>>>Any reason not to start a discussion for creating comp.unix.bsd.386?
>>>(For the many people who are interested in geeric BSD issues, but
>>>could care less about device drivers in 386BSD, etc.)
>
>>Someone please do this!!!!!! People like me who use true 4.xBSD
>>UNIX need this group to talk about issues that concern 4.xBSD in
>>general. There has been just too much on 386BSD (which I abandoned
>
>It looks to me like it's time. Will c.u.bsd still have enough traffic
>to make it a viable group? I think so. Discussions on the 68k port,
>stuff on NET/2 (including the pending legal action) should keep it
>ticking along - and I think quite a few people will be happy NOT to have
>to skip the 386BSD/BSDI386-related discussions. I can't understand why,
>though ;-)
I strongly disagree here! It took me a *long* time to get comp.unix.bsd
and alt.suit.att-bsdi to even be propagated to this site (I used to stay
after work *real* late one time a week to read and post to it). I don't
think I'd like another 3 month delay! I'm sure others are in the same
boat, and probably don't have a secondary site to save them; there is an
inherent propagation delay in the formation of new groups.
I personally don't have problems with 68K porting discussions in this group,
and the legal action already has it's own group, alt.suit.att-bsdi. If you
aren't already getting this one, it's a good argument against accepting a
rename based propagation delay. Perhaps a comp.unix.bsd.porting?
This leaves the net2 stuff, which is only out in beta right now, so it leaves
us some time. *IF* we truly think that comp.unix.bsd is inappropriate for
386bsd, perhaps we should create the group and manditorily crosspost. I
believe the group that would be suggested by Bill and Lynne would be
"comp.os.bsd" to avoid trademark entanglement such as that in BSDI's ad
(this is what they have suggested before).
Terry Lambert
terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com
terry@icarus.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
terry@icarus.weber.edu
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------