HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: defines of FAULTS in solaris
Date: 24 Jan 93 20:42:27 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

>>I.e., It Would Probably Be A Good Idea if ICL did this the way Sun did,
>>and if ICL just picked it up from USL, It Would Probably Be A Good Idea
>>if USL did this the way Sun did....
>
>ICL's SVR4 is the SPARC reference SVR4.  Solaris 2.x is not a real SVR4
>USL release; it is a USL-Sun development tree which was branched at some
>arbitrary intra-version point and dragged off by Sun to make it as
>divergent as they felt like.

Nevertheless, it would *STILL* probably be a good idea if ICL did this
the way Sun did, given that the way Sun did it matches what the standard
AT&T/USL SVR4 documentation I have says, and the way ICL did it doesn't
- i.e., if you include <sys/fault.h> in SunOS 5.x, you get the fault
codes defined, just as the damn "proc(4)" man page says you do, but, it
appears, you *don't* get them defined if you include <sys/fault.h> in
the ICL system.

Not to mention the fact that putting all the fault codes in a
"sys/sparc/XXX.h" file is Just Too Fucking Stupid For Words, given that
they are intended to represent faults that just about *any* machine will
have; only an idiot would arrange that, say, the fault code for
"recoverable page fault" would have different values on the x86 SVR4,
MIPS SVR4, SPARC SVR4, etc..
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: work@tasha.guug.de (Felix Blank)
Subject: Re: UHC SVR4 UNIX opinions sought
Keywords: UHC UNIX SVR4
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:19:24 GMT

coconut@crash.cts.com (Brian Dear) writes:

>Anyone out there using UHC UNIX?  I am curious to hear what users'
>impressions are.  Good?  Bad?  Ugly?  How's the tech support?  Why
>did you choose UHC over some other vendor's SVR4?

The only thing i can say about it: NEVER BUY UHC UNIX !!!!

It's not a technical problem, it's a problem of their service (or what they
call service). Just to give you one example (out of a lot of bad experiences),
i ordered last october an upgrade to V 4.0.3.6. The upgrade arrived fine
and very fast. But the second boot disk of the WD7000 boot disks were
wrong (identical with the first one). Meanwhile i send 12 fax messages to their
"support team", but go no answer until today! So their upgrade lies around
waiting to be installed, but can not be installed, because of the lack of
the second boot disk.
This is not the only story about UHC i have to tell. The other of the same
qualitiy :-(
Now i am waiting for Solaris and Univel becomming available and will then
make a decision to buy a new system.

Felix
-- 
Felix Blank                                 Internet   : felix@tasha.guug.de
Germany, Munich                             CompuServe : 76334,3373
Fax: +49-89-8206074
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: New year problem
Followup-To: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Summary: find -ctime; ls -l problems
Keywords: year rollover
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 18:06:19 GMT

In SVR4 (UHC), I've noticed that the date format printed with ls -l
prints "month day year" for previous years and "month day time" for
current year files-- but files less than 6 months old print "month day time"
still.  This makes find -ctime think they are in the future,
(because if the year is missing, it assumes the current year) causing
backups (using find -ctime -nn) much bigger than they need to be.

Why does find use the "ls" algorithm instead of "seconds since 1970" for
relative date calculations?

Apparently, there is no fix on the horizon from USL.

If you have any work arounds other than "touching" everything, please Email
or post. Thanks.

-- 
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@          | International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |isus.tnet.com -| Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |ncar!enuucp!   | System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice_602_996_1717 telesys!isus!hoyt The Universe in two postulates__________|
From: bruno@athena.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (Bruno Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: Can Consensus 5.4.2 and DOS-MERGE be done AT ALL?
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:59:16 GMT
Organization: McGill University Broom Closet

jkl@hunan.rastek.com (James Keith Losset) writes:
>I'm trying, *really* trying to make the decision on which SVR4 to buy.
>With all of the rave reviews here (and I do take them seriously), I still
>am uncomfortable with DELL's future with this line.  I'm thinking of
>tossing the coin and risking Concensus.  However, I must have DOS-UNDER-
>UNIX.  Are there any options for doing this to overcome the fact that
>Concensus hasn't.  Has anyone integrated MERGE with 4.2 yet.  Does anyone
>have any insight into when or if Concensus will have it... or why they
>don't now?

For better of for worse, I'm using Dell SVR4 2.2, which as you're
aware, comes with Locus's Merge.

I need DOS to run things like matlab.  Since merge only provides a
virtual 8088 with only EMS (and matlab wants XMS, naturally), and
since I need not only a machine with lots of RAM, but some real speed
too, my solution is to get another 486.

With a networked, but diskless DOS-dedicated box, I have full DOS
compatibility, and can run (argh! MS Windows and matlab), with the 
benefits of staying virus-free, and having all my unix files at my
disposal on both machines.

Merge is a neat hack, and playing old CGA games under X is most
amusing, but if you need DOS to do serious work, I'm afraid
that merge just won't cut it.  I've run all sorts of things under
merge, including schematic design tools, and a circuit simulator.
Everything worked OK, but occasionally the virtual machine would lock
up for unknown reasons.  Also, merge slows down the entire system
somewhat, and isn't all that fast.

In any event, I imagine that Consensys comes with the dos* suite of
commands, so you can do UNIX-DOS transfers without having to bring up
the DOS machine.  Also, depending on what exactly you want to do under
DOS, you might be able to get away using (my solution and) a 386; a
motherboard for which can be found for quite cheap these days.

Bruno

Incidentally, what comes with Consensys?  Does one get X?
-- 
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Bruno Hall  |  VE2HUM  |  bruno@mcrcim.mcgill.edu         
McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines - Controls Group
New systems generate new problems -- Join the Flat Earth Society.
From: bruno@athena.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (Bruno Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: Is there a 16550 driver for svr4?
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:27:20 GMT
Organization: McGill University Broom Closet

adh@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.d.hay) writes:
>dmatic@athena.mit.edu (Davor Matic) writes:
>"Is there a 16550 driver for svr4?  Preferably with sources.
>
>sas [streams asy solution] 2.0 will be out Real Soon Now [been hearing
>that for months], and is a streams reimplementation of fas [final ...]
>2.1 which has been out for a while and includes 16550, multiport, high
>speed, and basically everything.

That's nice, but doesn't help adh right now.

Check out SAS-1.25, which works great on my 14 ports, and
so I don't see why folks are whining so much about it.

udevdiv.Unibase.SK.CA:sources/sas-1.25.tar.Z

Bruno
-- 
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Bruno Hall  |  VE2HUM  |  bruno@mcrcim.mcgill.edu         
McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines - Controls Group
New systems generate new problems -- Join the Flat Earth Society.
From: stevehu@trident.usacs.rutgers.edu (Operation GunBuster)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: SLIP driver for SVR 4.2
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:34:59 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


I need to get my hands on a SLIP driver for UNIX SVR 4.2 (or the source
codes would be fine too).  If anyone know here I could get such a thing,
please let me know.  I have a serial connection and I want to use that
to connect UNIX to a gateway server and I need a SLIP driver.

stevehu@dorm.rutgers.edu
stevehu@trident.usacs.rutgers.edu

Please contact me at the above addresses.  Thanks.
Xref: sparky comp.unix.sys5.r4:1396 biz.sco.general:5574 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1331
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: The Future of ESIX (was Re: PC-clone UNIX Software Buyer's Guide)
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:32:21 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1993Jan23.230912.27802@compu.com>, fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:

| Item - this morning's San Jose Mercury News says that bankrupt Everex
| is planning to sell ESIX to James River, lock, stock, barrel for $43,000 (yes,
| that's forty three thousand dollars) in cash plus a three year royalty deal
| not to exceed $1,000,000 and a $167,000 loan from Everex. 

| I wonder why Larry didn't buy the company? I mean the source license alone 
| must be worth more than than the cost of the entire venture. And it is V4.

  At that price I would have bought it myself!

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
	A terible poker player can have a great hand,
	A obnoxious fool can have a good idea.
	Both are winners, regardless of who has them.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: corey@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (william.c.brown)
Subject: Re: RS-232 comm. in UNIX workstation
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:57:00 GMT
Summary: No problem!

In article <1993Jan20.010032.4267@arizona.edu>, jwkim@ece.arizona.edu (Jinwoo Kim) writes:
> Dear Netters,
> 
> I am trying to connect UNIX workstation with the PC using serial
> communication cable(RS232-C). I know how to do in the PC side, 
> but don't know how to implement in the workstation side.
> 
> My workstation is Motorola MPC (Multi Personal Computer model-200/300)
> and OS is System V/M88. The machine has one serial comm. card (MVME714/M)
> which has two serial ports.
> 
> I appreciate if somebody who had some experience in RS-232
> communication in the UNIX workstation help me.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> 
> Jinwoo Kim       Email :  jwkim@helios.ece.arizona.edu


I was able to do this between my PC running ESIX and another PC by strapping
the following pins.


	DOS PC		ESIX PC
	1		1
	2-------\/------2      Cross 2 and 3 so that transmit and receive
	3-------/\------3      work properly.
	4		4
	5		5
	6	     *--6
	7---------------7     *Strap 6,8 and 20 together on the workstation
	8            *--8      side. Use software flow control.
	20           *--20

Your best bet is to use a break-out box to determine what leads are coming
high when the machines are connected together. Use the straps in the break-out
box to simulate a connector. Once you have found the combination that works
get an rs-232 "kit" from your local computer supplier and make up a connector
that fits your needs...



/* -----							*/
/* Corey Brown  (WB0RXQ): 20m, 15m, 2m(146.82) 70cm(443.65)     */
/* AT&T NSD							*/
/* Alpharetta, Ga 30202						*/
/* (404)750-8071						*/
/*			-----------------			*/
/* att!alphlk!wcb          | They're history in terms of the	*/
/* attmail!wcbrown         | future! (lws-91)			*/
/*							  ----- */


Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: dlparker@dlpinc00.rn.com (David L. Parker)
Subject: Re: Can Consensus 5.4.2 and DOS-MERGE be done AT ALL?
Organization: Automated Data Management Services
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:20:41 GMT

In article <C19tL9.Jy0@hunan.rastek.com> jkl@hunan.rastek.com (James Keith Losset) writes:
>Concensus hasn't.  Has anyone integrated MERGE with 4.2 yet.  Does anyone
>have any insight into when or if Concensus will have it... or why they

UnixWare (4.2 from Univel) bundles Merge with both the Personal Edition and
the Application Server, but Windows 3.1 support is not supposed to be ready
until Q2.  I'm not sure if there's anything available from Locus for other
vendors' 4.2, which I believe is only Consensys so far.  I don't believe 
they bundle it.  I think their ads would mention it, if they did.  Also, the
version bundled with UnixWare supports only two sessions, at least in the
PE edition.  Multiple sessions are available with an add-on package.
-- 
Dave Parker           -          uucp:  dlparker%dlpinc00@gator.rn.com
Automated Data Management Services
Pleasant Hill, MO 64080-1331   -   (816) 987-5167/5218 voice/fax
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: backup / problems ??
Date: 20 Jan 1993 19:59:28 -0500
Organization: The Programmers' Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI
NNTP-Posting-Host: mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us

In article <C13t15.H9t@news.rn.com> larry@news.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>with find . -depth -print -mount | dd bs=5k | cpio -ocB > /dev/tape
                           ^^^^^^
This is why you don't have any problems.  The -mount flag to find(1)
tells it not to recurse into other filesystems.  Since both /proc and
/dev/fd are implemented as separate filesystems under SVR4, cpio never
tries to back them up.

But I agree with Larry that you generally don't want to try to back up
pseudo-filesystems such as /proc; their contents will generally be
invalid by the time you go to restore.  /dev/fd is different; it
consists of regular character device files, and you should back it up
just like you back up the rest of /dev.  Of course, tar won't handle
this correctly, but then again tar doesn't handle *any* device files
correctly, and thus shouldn't really be used for a backup of your root
filesystem.

Me, I prefer ufsdump -- nice and fast, and the interactive ufsrestore
mode is a godsend when you can't quite remember the name of the file
you need to restore.

-- 
Marc Unangst, N8VRH         | "Of course, in order to understand this you
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us   |  have to remember that the nucleus of the atom
                            |  is squishy."
                            |    -W. Scheider, from a Physics lecture
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: steven@unipalm.co.uk (Steven Vincent)
Subject: LPnet and LPD/LPR client machines?
Keywords: LPD LPNET "network printing"
Organization: Unipalm Ltd., 216 Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge CB4 4WA, UK
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:30:33 GMT


Is the System V Rel 4 lpnet network printing support
supposed to be compatible with older BSD type systems
based on lpr/lpd ?  

In particular how do I set up a System V rel 4 Unix 
system to support non-unix clients using lpr & lpd 
to submit print jobs to the new Unix systems.

I have notes on setting this up on Solaris but then
Sun can be expected to include this as an extra since
previous versions of SunOS used the BSD system. These
notes are not generic enough to cover an NCR ATT Unix
system used at another site.

How many of you have integrated non-unix clients and
a SYSV Rel 4 server and how did you do this?


Thanks for any replies. e-mail me and I shall post
the outcome.



================================================
Steven Vincent,             steven@unipalm.co.uk
Unipalm Ltd.                (44) 0223-420002
Cambridge,
England.
================================================
Subject:  
Summary:  
Keywords:  


Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.questions
From: sam@csi.compuserve.com (Sam Neely)
Subject: What's the correct way to write a wtmp entry on SVR4?
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:18:51 GMT

Environment: SVR4 (4.0.4), Dell Issue 2.2

I need to write an entry to /var/adm/wtmp and /var/adm/wtmpx to signify
that a user has logged out.  I have tried using the getut(3c) routines
to do this, but I do not know how to tell the library to append the
entry to the end of the file rather than searching for an entry to
update.

Could someone tell me the correct way to update wtmp{,x}?  I'd like
to use the getut(3c) routines if it is possible as I don't want to
open the files directly if I can avoid it.

Thanks
-- 
Sam Neely, CompuServe Incorporated                  +1 614 538 3718 (voice)
5000 Arlington Centre Blvd, Columbus, OH  43220     +1 614 457 0348 (FAX)
Electronic Mail:  InfoPlex: >CSI:SAM      Internet: sam@csi.compuserve.com
To err is human, to forgive is against company policy
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: Is there a 16550 driver for svr4?
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:25:06 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1993Jan21.081534.9380@athena.mit.edu>, dmatic@athena.mit.edu (Davor Matic) writes:

| Is there a 16550 driver for svr4?  Preferably with sources.

FAS 2.10
SAS
I thought the default device drivers use a 16550, although I've only
tried it on Dell. That is, I've used only dumb serial with other
vendor's versions.
-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: scott@palan.uucp (Scott Boake)
Subject: traceroute for DELL Unix - Anybody have it?
Organization: Palantir Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:21:07 GMT

Hi!

I'm looking for a version of traceroute that will run on Dell Vr4...

Anybody have an address of an ftp site or can mail it to me?

Thanks in advance!

---Scott
-- 
----
Scott Boake                                            Palantir Systems, Inc.
Internet: scott@palantir.com                           5030 - 78th Ave N Ste 11
    UUCP: uunet!palan!scott                            Pinellas Park, FL 34665
From: tan@bronson.uucp (Tan Bronson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Dell Issue 2.2 & TurboTax '93 (Head Start Edition)
Date: 24 Jan 93 22:52:00 GMT
Organization: Microvation Consultants 20 Sperry Rd Madison, Ct 04663


    I loaded Turbotax on my Dell system the other day and after the
installation was complete, I transfered data from last years tax return
and called it a night.
    The next time I tried to run Turbotax I got the new screen that identifies
this version of turbo tax as mine and it hangs :-(

    Has anyone else see this problem? I can run ttax92 just fine, as well
as quicken, autocad 9 & 10, duke-nuk-em, vette, etc.
I'm at a loss at how to go about debugging this. I'm sure Chipsoft
could care less that it fails under Merge 2.2...

    I was in a hacking mood so I spent a few hours playing. The first thing
I did was to try to build a new dos image (using dosadmin on the console).
After that when I tried to run dos, I got the message I have to run
'dosinstall', but running this required me to have floppies that I did not
get from Dell. I then I found out that something had eased several files
in /usr/merge/image as well as /usr/dbin/command.com.

    After I restored those files, I tried to see if /usr/lib/merge/vmtrace
would give me any clues. I took a guess at the file argument it
wanted and I tried ~/dos/bin/ttax93/ttax.exe, but that wipes out the file,
so I've got a reload turbotax (and I left it at work).

    Finally I've read and re-read the merge releases notes etc,
but they are for Merge 2.1 and not Merge 2.2. It cost me $100 or
so to buy the Merge manuals for Issue 2.1, so I'm happy to
see they are included, but I'd like to see the latest versions!

    Any clues would be appreciated. I'm going to try loading turboxtax
after defining "merge set drive/handle local", and if that does not work
then I can try creating a virtual dos disk...

    If all else fails I'll use a real PC :-(

    thanks in advance for anyones help!
-- 
Tan Bronson		tan@Microvation.COM (or tan@bronson.UUCP)
Microvation Consultants 20 Sperry Road 		Madison, CT 06443
			Voice: (203)-421-5061	Fax: (203)-421-5292
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home)
Subject: Re: The Future of ESIX (was Re: PC-clone UNIX Software Buyer's Guide)
Organization: CompuData Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:05:05 GMT

larry@trauma.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:

>The bottom line is that you Fred seem to think that all the large
>installations are running SCO which isn't the case.   There are other operating
>systems out there that are just as reliable and solid as SCO, if not more.

No, that is not the bottom line. When you tell me that you were at a 200 user 
ESIX site as a response to my post of a 200 user SCO MPX site, I get curious.

It is my business to know a deal when I see it. MPX costs big bucks for lots 
of users. The Altos 15000 wasn't cheap either.

As a business owner and computer systems/service provider, I am trying to find 
out if such a thing as a 200 user 486 ESIX system really can perform 
adequately.  I'm trying to find out just how well this can work based upon
your report of such a functional system.  I'm having a hell of a time getting
the particulars.  If the place is a secret CIA joint, that would be one thing,
but you say it's a county operation running after family support cheaters.

So, if it exists, where?

Actually, I'd be curious about any other large INTEL installations that are 
not networked but use a single box with one or more processors. I'm curious 
whether any other multi-processor system based upon INTEL boards exists yet 
and is standard to what we would consider binary compatibility.

I know OSF/1 promised this a few years ago but as far as I know we are still 
waiting for something other than words from those folks.

Fred

-- 
W. Fred Rump 	office:	   fred@COMPU.COM     "A man's library is a sort of 
26 Warren St.   home: fr@icdi10.compu.com 	harem" - Emerson (1860) 
Beverly, NJ. 08010                          		 
609-386-6846    bang:uunet!cdin-1!icdi10!fr   
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: steveh@orbital.demon.co.uk (Stephen Hebditch)
Subject: Re: telnet/rlogin problem on ESIX 4.0.4
Organization: TQM Communications, London, UK
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:14:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.120325.27392@cs.hw.ac.uk> hmc@cs.hw.ac.uk (Hugh Conner) writes:
>We are experiencing strange behaviour with telnet and rlogin on an ESIX 4.0.4
>system. They appear to leave old entries lying around in the utmp file.

This also happens under Dell 4.0.4 (Issue 2.2) for all logins using
ttymon, telnetd or rlogind. As far as I can tell, ttymon is not
cleaning up properly at the close of a session. There doesn't currently
appear to be a fix available for this.

-- 
Stephen Hebditch  TQM Communications  steveh@orbital.demon.co.uk +44 836 825962
From: coconut@crash.cts.com (Brian Dear)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: UHC SVR4 UNIX opinions sought
Summary: Looking for opinions of UHC UNIX
Keywords: UHC UNIX SVR4
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:46:41 GMT
Reply-To: brian@coconut.com
Organization: Coconut Computing, Inc., La Jolla, CA, U.S.A.

Anyone out there using UHC UNIX?  I am curious to hear what users'
impressions are.  Good?  Bad?  Ugly?  How's the tech support?  Why
did you choose UHC over some other vendor's SVR4?

-- brian
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: larry@trauma.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: Netmasks and SLIP
Organization: Gator Communications - Feeds-R-Us 219-289-3745 
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:56:57 GMT

garyb@gcm.com (Gary Blumenstein) writes:

>O.K.  Assuming I'm using a subnet for my class C network, how can
>I get my slipdialout connection to configure sl0 with my chosen netmask?
>In my case, I'm using 0xffffffc0.

>(C'mon Larry, I know you know the answer to this one! :-)

have you looked at ifconfig?  here is what we use at boot time

/usr/sbin/ifconfig "sl0" gator use-gw3 netmask 255.255.255.0 up
-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.use.com
keeper of the Gator                                   uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4