From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.lanman
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:59:09 GMT

In article <1in5n8INN1sv@rodan.UU.NET> Albert Crosby <acrosby@uafhp.uark.edu> writes:
>Request For Discussion for comp.sys.lanman
>PROPOSAL:
>         Create an UNMODERATED Usenet newsgroup comp.sys.lanman
>CHARTER:
>         A group for the discussion of Microsoft Lan Manager networking and
>related products including IBM Lan Server, 3Com 3+Open, Syntax, Pathworkds,
>and other OEM products.  This forum is primarily for discussing installation,
>maintenance, and administration of Microsoft Lan Manager based networks and
>workstations under various operating systems, including DOS, Macintosh, UNIX,
>OS/2, Windows NT, and Windws for Workgroups.

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.)

The major network operating systems are in a period of rapid change.
Microsoft is dropping LAN Manager on OS/2 (and I expect
comp.os.os2.networking will pick up the pieces :-)); meanwhile,
Microsoft is bringing LAN Manager to NT, although it isn't clear when
that will be ready; IBM is reasserting LAN Server on OS/2, has
decoupled it from Big Blue hardware, and the Macintosh edition is in
beta testing already.  Novell is planning a version of NetWare 4.0 on
its own operating system (probably a Unix derivative) as well as a
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
haven't even begun to mention peer-to-peer.

>RATIONALE:
>         Microsoft Lan Manager and numerous OEM variants are widely used in
>the business and academic environment.  There already exists a mailing list
>(LANMAN-L) devoted to Microsoft Lan Manager, and various newsgroups that
>occasionally see Lan Manager related traffic, including comp.dcom.lan.misc,
>comp.os.os2.networking, comp.sys.novell, comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,
>comp.protocols.* and several others.  Creating a single Usenet newsgroup
>comp.sys.lanman will make a single place where Lan Manager network
>administrators and users can share and obtain information.
>         Additionaly, as operating systems such as MS Windows NT and IBM OS/2
>2.0 gain popularity, interest in Lan Manager related networking will grow.
>The networking capabilities of MS Windows NT are an implementation of
>Microsoft Lan Manager, and IBM's Lan Server family of products (including the
>forthcoming OS/2 Peer Services) is derived from Microsoft Lan Manager.  Other
>OEM manufacturers of Lan Manager derived products include 3Com and HP.
>        One issue remaining to be resolved is whether or not the existing
>mailing list LANMAN-L will be gatewayed to comp.sys.lanman if it is created.
>The administrator of the site hosting LANMAN-L has expressed his willingness
>to create such a gateway, though final word will rest with the list's owner.
>        A volunteer is needed to handle the vote collection, provided this
>proposal reaches that stage.

I'm almost tempted to suggest:

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

:-)

Seriously, I think it would be far more useful to have
comp.os.nt.lanman or comp.os.nt.networking -- or even
comp.os.nt.networking.lanman.  (I wouldn't RFD those now, obviously.
Still far too early.)  Let the new Windows networking newsgroup handle
things for LAN Manager on the DOS/Windows side.  Let LAN Manager on
OS/2 (since its manufacturer seems bent on orphaning it) be handled in
comp.os.os2.networking.  A newsgroup like comp.sys.lanman
realistically wouldn't handle any of the "derivatives" traffic --
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).

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.

We could split comp.os.os2.networking into comp.os.os2.networking.misc
and comp.os.os2.networking.lanman, if you'd like (perhaps adding
.tcpip and .lanserver in the process).

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0i, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Xref: sparky news.groups:25135 sci.physics:22236