From: acrosby@uafhp.uark.edu (Albert Crosby)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: RE: RFD comp.sys.lanman
Date: 10 Jan 1993 19:22:32 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

[The charter for comp.sys.lanman deleted...]

>Funny, this is remarkably close to the charter for
>comp.os.os2.networking, which covers IBM LAN Server, Microsoft LAN
>Manager, Pathworks, and other network operating systems running atop
>OS/2.  Also, a Windows networking group has already been RFD'ed, and
>the charter for that group seems to be the other half of what you've
>suggested.  Don't we already have a lot of LAN Manager coverage?  And,
>since Microsoft seems intent on reducing LAN Manager to NT
>specificity, wouldn't comp.os.nt.lanman or comp.os.nt.networking make
>more sense?  (I'm not trying to be petulant here, but we do have to
>deal with reality.)

Actually, from talking with people at Microsoft in the process of supporting a
Lan Manager network, Microsoft's intermediate to long range plans include Lan
Manager "everywhere" -- DOS, Windows, Windows 4 Workgroups, Windows NT, OS/2,
Unix, and whatever else comes down the pike.  It does appear that NT will be
Microsoft's SERVER platform of choice, although I get the impression even that
is not writteen in stone.

Admittedly, the other groups you mention exist.  Should we therefore move for
the removal of comp.sys.novell (not just a renaming as some have suggested)? 
I would hope not.  comp.sys.lanman (or whatever it's name becomes) would be a
home for discussions of Lan Manager based/related networking in a
non-operating specific fashion, and the issues of administration -- especially
in the confusing realm of services for several operating systems.

>version sitting atop OS/2.  IBM LAN Server 3.0 is hardly a LAN Manager
>derivative any more, because of the Microsoft-IBM split.  And I

Though IBM appears to be planning, quite reasonably IMHO, to keep the ability
to talk to Lan Manager resources in future versions.  And I'm sure most Lan
Server admins looking for a place to discuss it would find comp.sys.lanman
easily.  As Timothy has pointed out, c.o.os2.networking talks about much more
than Lan Manager/Lan Server.  There's Novell, TCP/IP, etc.  Not to mention
that it hardly seems the appropriate forum for discussing providing network
services to DOS, Macintosh, Windows, NT, and Unix clients :-).


>I'm almost tempted to suggest:

>comp.sys.non-novell-lan
>or
>comp.sys.non-novell-server

Actually, in light of the recent proposals to rename comp.sys.novell, perhaps
a hierarchy including comp.os.nos.novell, comp.os.nos.lanman, and
comp.os.nos.misc should be created.  Or both comp.sys.lanman and
comp.sys.novell could be moved into such a hierarchy in the future.

Or, perhaps comp.dcom.lan.nos.novell and comp.dcom.lan.lanman. :-)

Personally, I don't think the naming issue is one that should derail the
proposal. 

>especially LAN Server 3.0.  Also, I think you'll find that the OS/2
>LAN Manager people have very little in common with any forthcoming NT
>LAN Manager people (sometime in the future).

From the feelers that I've made to MS, it appears to be otherwise.  OS/2 Lan
Manager and NT Lan Manager will comfortably coexist on the same wire.  And
talk to each other, of course.  It's just that MS appears to be holding out NT
as its future choice for server platform rather than OS/2.  (Admittedly, MS
has made some moves that make those of us who follow OS/2 closely somewhat
concerned, to put it mildly.) 
 
>Finally, this newsgroup seems to run counter to the current trend of
>merging the network operating system with the general operating
>system.  It is certainly happening in Windows (Windows for Workgroups,
>NT with LANMan sometime in the future), OS/2 (LAN Server 3.0, NetWare
>4.0 Blue, OS/2 Peer Services, TCP/IP), Unix (Novell, TCP/IP),
>Desqview/X (TCP/IP), DR-DOS (Novell), etc.  The Macintosh started this
>trend in 1984.  I think networking discussions that are tied to their
>respective platforms make more sense, especially as time goes on, with
>general networking groups explaining how to tie the platforms
>together.

comp.sys.lanman (or whatever name it acquires)  would fall in the category
of one of those general groups.  Microsoft (for what it's worth) appears to be
committed to making Lan Manager based/style networking widely available as an
interplatform networking solution.  How well that pans out, of course, remains
to be seen.  (For DOS, MS even includes a NetWare Connectivity module
already.)

comp.sys.novell, too, will probably evolve into the "later" category -- a
general group talking about how to tie various platforms together using novell
based network operating systems.

I feel that the group comp.sys.novell and the proposed group comp.sys.lanman
can and should exist along side operating system specific network groups such
as comp.os.os2.networking.  The operating specific groups are places for
discussing all the various network issues for that specific operating system. 
The c.s.novell and c.s.lanman groups would be for discussing interplatform,
administrative, and setup/connection issues that are not operating system
specific. 
 
Of course more comments are welcome!

Albert
--
Albert Crosby          | There are actually THREE things certain in this life:
acrosby@uafhp.uark.edu |
 or AL.CROSBY on GENIE |   Death, Taxes, and Parking Tickets.
1 501 575 4452         |     
Microcomputer and Network Support-UA College of Agriculture and Home Economics
Newsgroups: news.groups