From: rich@Rice.edu (Richard Murphey)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: comp.windows.x.i386unix
Reply-To: Rich@rice.edu
Organization: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rice
	University
	<1992Oct9.140613.24320@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
	<1992Oct9.121501.1565@resonex.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 07:38:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.121501.1565@resonex.com> michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) writes:
   In article <1992Oct9.140613.24320@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> dwex@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.e.wexelblat) writes:
   >Well, "comp.windows.x.pc-clone" will get DOS and Windows folks involved,
   >and we don't want that.

   If the discussions center around ports of X, such as DesqView/X or a
   system which allows X and MS-Windows to co-exist, then DOS and Windows
   folk *should* be allowed in the newsgroup.  Also, check out the other

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.  As a cooperative effort, both
the users and the developers would benefit from a forum focused on
exchange of ideas specifically about the sources and binaries which
make up the free port.  It's also a forum for comparison and
discussion of kernel support for X.

I don't agree that discussion of DOS and Windows servers would enhance
the proposed charter.  The proposed charter would include discussions
and comparision of source patches to support new graphics adapters as
well as kernel patches to support X.  Two of the supported unix-like
systems are available free in source form, so kernel sources patches
will probably be an active topic.

   thread in news.groups talking about the potential reorg of
   comp.windows.*, which has the main purpose of changing the "windows"
   portion of the name to reduce confusion over "windowing system" vs
   "MS-Windows".  Any potential vote on "comp.windows.x.pc-clone" should
   also include the provision that if a "comp.windows.*" reorg is
   successful, this group will go there.  Assuming the reorg comes to a
   vote, that is.

Again, there's no reason to believe that discussion of a free X11R5
port on unix-like systems benefits from discussions of DOS and Windows.

   >"comp.unix.pc-clone.x" would include 16-bit machines.
   >"comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit.x" is just too much, in my opinion.

   I think it fits better under comp.windows.x, and not comp.unix, since
   X does not require Unix.  

agreed!
			     Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong
   with comp.windows.x.pc-clone, especially if the c.w.* reorg goes through
   as well.  

I still prefer comp.windows.x.pc-unix or something similar.

	     I'd also say there's no need to distinguish 32-bit from 16-bit
   at this time.  If it really gets troublesome in the future, then a
   split into comp.windows.x.pc-clone.{16bit,32bit} can be done at that
   time.

Wouldn't separation of DOS and Unix discussion be much more approprite
as things stand?  Regardless of the minimum hardware requirerements, I
think all of the discussion of different processor or bus
architectures would benefit from happening in the same newsgroup.  We
have plenty of discussion of ISA, EISA and VESA with regard to X
server support in each of the operating systems news groups
(comp.unix.bsd, etc.).  Rich