Path: random.ccs.northeastern.edu!lynx!noc.near.net!news.centerline.com!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!cbnewsj!dwex
   From: dwex@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.e.wexelblat)
   Organization: AT&T
   Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:15:19 GMT
   References: <1992Oct9.121501.1565@resonex.com> <RICH.92Oct10013832@kappa.Rice.edu> <1992Oct10.194541.6848@chinacat.unicom.com>
   Lines: 71

   In article <1992Oct10.194541.6848@chinacat.unicom.com> chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) writes:
   > In article <RICH.92Oct10013832@kappa.Rice.edu> Rich@rice.edu writes:
   > >Although DOS and Windows based X servers have their own merits, as it
   > >stands, the charter is for discussion of a free X11R5 port which is
   > >only supported on PC unix-like systems.
   > 
   > There are many folks (like me) which would not support a charter so
   > restricted.  We would ask that you strike the word `free' from your
   > description.  There is much commonality between XFree86, the commercial
   > SGCS and Metrolink systems, and the vendor-supplied X packages.  It
   > would be helpful to have a place to discuss all of these.  This would
   > not detract or demean from the ability of this group to support XFree86.
   > It would simply extend the charter to include more people.  For example,
   > even though Thomas Roell is no longer involved in the free X server
   > project, I'm sure he would read and contribute to the more general
   > group.  I think that's a contribution the XFree86 users would welcome.
   > 
   > David's name change reflects this broader charter.  I strongly support
   > it, and ask that others do too.
   > 

   Rich is aware of the change is scope of the charter.  He's on our
   XFree86 mailing lists (as a recent addition to the core team), and the
   charter expansion was agreed to in that forum before I posted the
   revised RFD.

I'd like to throw support behind this request as well. The name
comp.windows.x.i386unix is a good fit for the types of discussion it
will encompass. Due to the special concerns behind running X11 on a
unix-like protected mode system it would be OK to restrict postings to
such. The real-mode (and hybrids) OS's have entirely different concerns
and their discussion would really confuse things. Further, the great
majority of X11 related discussion is going on in groups such as c..bsd,
c..sysv386 and c..linux, etc. Much of that discussion would benefit if
we could bring the users together under a c.w.x.i386unix.

	[deleted]

   Yes; we are very explicitly trying to restrict this to Unix-like OSs.
   This may annoy some people, but the issues of running X on PC-based Unix 
   are very similar, regardless which OS flavor, or particular vendor.
   There is little to no correlation to running X under DOS or Window
   or wherever Desqview/X fits.  If those folks feel they need a newsgroup,
   they can have their own RFD/CFV.

I agree with this. Sticking the word "unix" at the end makes the point.

   > -- 
   > Chip Rosenthal  512-482-8260 | I got the blues so bad one time
   > Unicom Systems Development   | it put my face in a permanent frown.
   > <chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM>   |   - Taj Mahal


   -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
   David Wexelblat             | dwex@mtgzfs3.att.com  | Somebody get me a
   AT&T Bell Laboratories      | ...!att!mtgzfs3!dwex  |   cheeseburger!
   200 Laurel Ave - 4B-421     |                       |      
   Middletown, NJ  07748       | (908) 957-5871        | --Steve Miller Band
--
	***                                                      ***
	***  James Tsillas  jtsilla@damon.ccs.northeastern.edu   ***
	*** "He is after me. Jim is after him."                  ***
	***          - Hop on Pop, Dr. Seuss                     ***