🚀 go-pugleaf

I recently tried to help answer a question about tape performance in ISC
unix 2.0.2. The question was originally posted to comp.unix.sysv386, but
not to either of comp.unix.sys5.r3 or comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit.

My reply added group sys5.r3, but also included sysv386, along with a plea
not to post there.

Various followups have observed that sysv386 is still very active. This
is true, but two groups have been created to supercede it. One followup
suggested changing the active file field to =comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,
but I've also seen ISC discussion in sys5.r3.

Here is a short summary of the various groups:

old:	comp.unix.sysv386	Versions of System V (not Xenix) on
				Intel 80386-based boxes.

new:	comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit	UNIX on 386 and 486 architectures.
	comp.unix.sys5.r3		Discussing System V Release 3.

Given the names of the two new groups, it's likely that ISC questions
will be posted to either or both. This is something we will probably
have to accept.

But that still means that sysv386 is obsolete. No sense in having a THIRD
group for ISC discussions.

I'd like to suggest:

	don't post to comp.unix.sysv386

	if you want to reply to someone who posted to comp.unix.sysv386,
	reply only with a post similar to:

		look for your answer in comp.unix.sys5.r3
	or	look for your answer in comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit

	or send mail telling the poster where to find his answer

	someone should volunteer to post an FAQ type announcement to
	sysv386 about its obsolesense, perhaps monthly, until traffic
	dies down
	
There is no reason to continue sysv386. If we all stop responding there,
it will wither away. The alternative of aliasing into another group
doesn't appeal to me, since it means that old group names never die,
and don't even fade away.