HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:52:31 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Keywords: AT&T Death Star rises over BSDIs horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD]

In article <QIQHXX9@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>AT&T's claim though if litigated
>>well -- and AT&T has some of the best attorneys in the country -- may form
>>a basis for asserting a property right in virtually any compatible version
>>of a UNIX type operating system.
>
>I believe there may be a precedent here, in the Whitesmiths C library and
>Whitesmith's UNIX lookalike, from back in the early '80s. The original
>release of Whitesmith's C and (I believe) Idris used a non-standard variant
>of the UNIX standard I/O library to avoid any possible attack from AT&T (for
>example, "putfmt()" instead of "printf()". This was changed, from what I
>recall, after AT&T indicated that the interface defined in the UNIX
>programmer's manual (the look and feel) was public domain.
>
>In addition, of course, there is the precedent of donating the setuid patent
>to the public domain.


AT&T checked out Coherent back in 1981, and just told them that they couldn't 
call it UNIX.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
From: cflatter@nrao.edu (Chris Flatters)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: install 0.1 problems
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:49:08 GMT
Reply-To: cflatter@nrao.edu
Organization: NRAO

In article 6250@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov, kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes:
>1.  I attempted to reinstall OS/2.  386BSD seems to have usurped the boot
>    sector on the disk.  It appears that I'm going to have low level format 
>    my disk :-(  I didn't anticipate this from the install notes.  Even
>    agreeing to let the 386BSD take the whole disk shouldn't be this unkind
>    to my disk.

Talk about hunting gnats with a shotgun!  You don't need to do a low level
format to get rid of the BSD disk label: just write some garbage over it
(this is in the release notes).

>
>2.  How do I get 386BSD to recognize that I really do have 260 megabytes
>    of free space?  I'm going to get my hands on a copy of Disk Manager,
>    but there ought to be an 'fdisk' utility in 386BSD.  I found 'partition' 
>    on the fixit.fs disk, but the command line arguments displayed when
>    run with no arguments weren't intuitive.  And it wasn't mentioned
>    anywhere in the installation notes.

BSD disk partitioning is done through the disklabel and is incompatible
with Microsoft's partitioning scheme.  disklabel(8) partitions a disk;
partition(8) recommends partition sizes.

>
>3.  Would anyone "in the know" care to suggest when a fix for the bus
>    mouse problem might be available.  It's going to be a real drag
>    to pull the card every time I want to switch. :-)  I'm even offering
>    to help to solve it, if I can surmount the above obstacles.

Funny... I have a Logitech bus mouse installed and it didn't faze BSD at all.
You might check the jumpers on the mouse card --- you might be able to find
a configuration that works both with OS/2 and 386BSD.

	Chris Flatters
	cflatter@nrao.edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: beattie@hfsi.uucp (Brian Beattie)
Subject: Re: I wonder, did AT&T backstab BSDI?
Keywords: AT&T speculation lawsuit BSDI
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:19:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.201919.15968@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.174437.18606@gateway.novell.com> terry@thisbe.npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) writes:
>>Things AT&T owes to Berkeley:
>
>>4)	Job control
>
>Other systems had job control long before BSD did.

not UNIX systems from AT&T

>
>>5)	csh
>
>I use bash or ksh.  csh has too many problems.

Yes but SystemV csh still comes from BSD


Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: soward@slow.inslab.uky.edu (John Soward)
Subject: Re: I wonder, did AT&T backstab BSDI?
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:26:07 GMT

Knight of the Living Dead writes
-> 
-> As I recall when System 5 Revision 4.0 was released, it was described
-> (to me, anyway) as an attempt to gain "BSD Compatibility".  I'm wondering
-> if the reason why AT&T held out sueing BSDI this long is so they could
-> claim copyright of BSD's code/style/look/feel/etc while it was still
-> popular, and then smash all the competition.
-> 
-> If so, Steve Jobs at NeXT may find MACH being charged with having
-> unlicenced BSD-like code that is property of AT&T.
-> 

	I'm pretty sure NeXT pays for an AT&T lisence. (i.e. royalties and all  
as well as payment to Adobe, Microsoft, and now probably Novell, and probably  
many others.)  which probably explains why NeXTStep 486 won't be as cheap as  
NT. Now if the Suit blows over and NeXT moved to MACH 3.0 and 386bsdi, maybe  
things would be a little cheaper there ;-)


--
    ________________________________________________________________________
   /   'The midnight sun will burn you up" -The Cure, Piggy in the Mirror  /
  /      soward@ms.uky.edu | soward@slow.inslab.uky.edu (NeXT Mail)       /
 /_______________________________________________________________________/
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: mgrjtb@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Subject: Re: Keeping the AT&T discussion here 
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 02:34:48 GMT

Distribution: world

In article <l7392fINNf5@neuro.usc.edu> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
> >I created alt.suit.att-bsdi for ongoing discussion related to the suit
> >between AT&T and BSDI.  For sanity's sake, could it please be moved there?

If I had just heard of the suit, and was interested -- I would turn here.

It is silly to move discussion.

386BSD is much more specific than a AT&T suit against a free distribution of  
BSD.  How about alt.386BSD, or better yet, comp.os.386BSD (but I know that  
would take some time :-) )
_______________________________
Joseph T. Batt
mgrjtb@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
_______________________________
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:50:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.171828.11246@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>HAS ANYONE COMPARED THE CODE THEMSELVES?  Could someone with a source
>license FTP the damn NET2 release, pass them through "indent" and then
>compare them?

Yes, someone has.  Keith Bostic was the "lucky" individual at CSRG who got
to go through all of the sources and determine what had AT&T code in it and
what did not.

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "My psychiatrist says I have a messiah
sef@kithrup.COM  |  complex.  But I forgive him."
-----------------+              -- Jim Carrey
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:41:26 EDT

rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>But what I meant is that USL has not (as far as I know) made any attempt to
>stop the distribution of Net 2.  Right now, this very instant, you can
>reach out and touch any of several ftp sites to get a copy of Net 2.  It's
>pretty weird--that they're not complaining about the source of the unre-
>stricted distribution (CSRG) but they complain about someone else (BSDI)
>redistributing it.  I don't claim I understand it; all I'm saying is that
>it *appears* they don't want to restrict Net 2 _per_se_.

It is possible that AT&T's *lawyers* do not understand the concept of
"anonymous ftp", and when someone finally explains it to them, they'll
shit bricks.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: dmuntz@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Daniel A Muntz)
Subject: Re: tape drive problems
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 04:42:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.015910.3456@chinet.chi.il.us> randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) writes:
>
>	I have not been able to get the tape device (/dev/rwt0)
>	to work properly on 0.1.  I can tar/cpio/afio things out just
>	fine, but reading in produces garbage, even with the
>	directory reading options.  I have tried various wangtek
>	type 6150 drives and controllers.  All which work just fine
>	under SCO and sysvr4.  Same thing happens with a tape produced
>	on another machine running sysvr4.
>	Anyone had good luck with the tape drive?

Try using the block device /dev/wt0.  I've been hacking on wt.c to
get it working with an Archive controller (anyone interested plz send email).
At least with the Archive, the block device works where the raw device fails.
I don't think you'll be pleased with the performance if you do get it working...

  -Dan
From: pfaffman@pilot.njin.net (Jay Pfaffman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: tip com2 prob on 386bsd0.1...
Keywords: 386bsd, tip
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:54:01 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

kwan@netcom.com (Kwan-Seng Low) writes:

>I'm still having prob. tip to com2 on a fully installed 386bsd0.1
>tip com2 or tip com02
>file lock: no such file or directory
>all ports are busy

I did "chmod a+w /var/lock/uucp" & also had to change the permissions
of /dev/com2 to 777.  I suspect there's a more secure way to do this,
but security isn't much of an issue, now is it?

-- 
Jay Pfaffman, Computer Coordinator        pfaffman@pilot.njin.net
Dwight-Englewood School, 315 E. Palisade Ave.                      
Englewood, NJ  07631-0489                 201-569-9500
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: terry@npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert)
Subject: Re: SCSI tape drive not accessible
Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT
Distribution: comp
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:15:21 GMT

In article <5939@pdxgate.UUCP> brians@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Brian Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.080507.29145@news.uni-stuttgart.de> zrgl0376@helpdesk.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Cowboy aka Bjoern Lemke) writes:
>>In article <TMH.92Jul23041936@keks.first.gmd.de> tmh@keks.first.gmd.de (Thomas Hoberg) writes:
>>>I managed to get the "Tiny BSD" floppy accross the modem and got
>>>386BSD installed on my system (486/33, 16MB, ET4000/8514, AHA1542, 1GB
>>>Wren VII + 88MB Syquest SCSI drives, Tandberg TDC3800 QIC 525 SCSI
>>>Streamer). The SCSI disks are at targets 0+1, the tape drive is at
>>>target 4. On boot up, only the first disk is recognized. Trying to
>>
>>I run into a similar problem. I used a Fujitsu 2624 Harddisk with the same
>>Streamer (Tandberg). Setting the tape drive to target 4, resulted in 
>>nonrecognizing the streamer. (My harddisk is set to target 0). But after
>>setting the tape device to target 1, the scsi controller got it and
>>i was able to read and write from the device (/dev/ras1a) including some
>>scsi error messages (sense 0 0 0 0 .. and so on). I am not a scsi guru
>>and I don't know if this method is proper, but for the moment it works.
>
>This is in the faq recently posted.  Apparently, the scsi driver in
>386BSD only probes targets until it finds an empty spot.  So, if you had
>target 0, target 1 and target 4, then the driver would find target 0, then
>target 1, then look for target 2 (finding it empty/non-responsive), and
>conclude that no more devices were on the scsi bus.  The workaround is to
>make your scsi devices all contiguous and starting at 0.

Uh, this is *wrong* in the FAQ... 8-(.  I guess that's what I get for copying
from other peoples papers.  The problem is not that the devices are not
recognized after one empty slot; it's that the device nodes are created
incorrectly.  Do an 'ls -l' and you will see obviously bogus minor device
numbers.  I have seen two instances correcting me; one was mailed direct,
and one was posted here.  Since no one has come forward to claim official
keeper-of-the-FAQ status, I guess I will have to do at least one more posting
of an updated version.  Look for it some time this week.


					Terry Lambert
					terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com
					terry@icarus.weber.edu
---
Disclaimer:  Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of
my present or previous employers.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: lundby@pabst.comm.mot.com (Walter Lundby)
Subject: Re: New group alt.suit.att-bsdi
Reply-To: lundby@comm.mot.com
Organization: Motorola LMPS Research, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:12:01 GMT

I am informed that:

  No -- the readers in misc.legal.computing are 
  only interested in whether they 
  have a unpublished work copyright 
  on network newsgroup submissions.

I withdraw the suggestion but ask that the discussion NOT be moved to an "alt"
group.  "alt" isn't sufficiently "work related" or "correct" (as in PC) for
many companies to subscribe to.  Therefore those of us who work for these 
businesses will "lose the thread".

  
--

########################################
#
# Disclaimer:
#    Opinions expressed are only my own,
#    and should not be construed as
#    representing those of Motorola Inc.
#
########################################

  Walter Lundby
  Motorola, Inc.
Xref: sparky comp.unix.bsd:3016 comp.sys.laptops:2944
From: gdonl@sunrise.ssi1.com (Don Lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.sys.laptops
Subject: Re: power conservation for laptos running unix?
Date: 28 Jul 92 05:29:58 GMT
Organization: Silicon Systems, Nevada City CA

In article <1992Jul24.175013.14718@tfs.com> paigen@tfs.com (David Paigen) writes:
>
>I am interested in running unix on a laptop.  A major concern
>is battery life.

>Obviously, the 30 sync cycle is likely to keep the disk powering
>up & down all the time, or to keep it on all of the time.

If there are no dirty buffers, then sync shouldn't need to start
up the disk to write anything.  If there are dirty buffers, then
you probably want to spin up the disk to write them anyway.  Not
updating file access times (or deferring the actual update) might
be a win though.
-- 
Don "Truck" Lewis              Phone: +1 916 478-8284   Silicon Systems
Internet: gdonl@ssi1.com       FAX:   +1 916 478-8290   138 New Mohawk Road
UUCP: {uunet,tektronix!gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com}!ssigv!gdonl  Nevada City, CA  95959
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:56:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.165236.10937@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>The press releases I was talking about MOSTLY mention OSF!  Buying OSF
>results in USL making 0 $$$.

Not at the moment.  The current OSF/1, which is based on Mach2.[56],
requires a V32 source license, at the least.  Since such aren't available
anymore, you have to get a later version, probably SysVr4.

In addition, OSF specifically licensed parts of the SysVr3.x code from USL
in order to include it in OSF/1.  Specifically, the STREAMS code, as there
were no such things in the original Mach code.

If OSF/1 becomes based on Mach3.0, *and* the UNIX servers are written from
scratch, or based on ones that do not contain any USL code (such as the
Net/2 based one, although that would be as debatable as BSDi's product),
*then* purchasing an OSF/1 system might not cause in any license fees to
USL.  Maybe; it would depend on whether everything *else* had been purged of
USL/AT&T code.

Buying Motif from OSF results in USL making $0, true, but that is an
entirely different kettle of fish.

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "My psychiatrist says I have a messiah
sef@kithrup.COM  |  complex.  But I forgive him."
-----------------+              -- Jim Carrey
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Subject: Re: New group alt.suit.att-bsdi
Reply-To: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:13:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.044421.21002@vpnet.chi.il.us>, ddb@vpnet.chi.il.us (dennis box) writes:

Asume I've been living in a cave...In a few sentances, can someone synopsise
the suit and what ATT labs is trying to do?

jimf
--
My opinions and ideas are, in fact, not mine at all, but the property of
Digital Equipment Corp. (provided they relate to computers).  Opinions I may
have concerning other subjects are not really mine either, but are the product
of the environment I have been exposed to.  Thus, I am totally without
responsibility for anything I may say or do. 
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,can.general
From: brian@apt.bungi.com (Brian Litzinger)
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI & Our Retaliation
Organization: NoOrg
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 07:52:38 GMT

In article <9207231306.AA06854@GRANNY.CS.NYU.EDU> m-jk8594@GRANNY.CS.NYU.EDU (James Kyriannis) writes:
>I don't believe simply disconnecting your AT&T service, destroying your AT&T
>calling/credit cards, or boycotting System V is going to make AT&T notice
>your disgust in their policies.
>
>Simply telling a 'phone rep.' that you want your long distance service
>disconnected because AT&T sucks isn't enough -- your telephone conversation
>with the 'rep' is not going to be recorded and played back to his/her 
>manager.  People of higher authority have to hear your statement if you
>want to make any sort of impact.

I called my local AT&T sales droid and told them that I was upset
over this USL (AT&T) vs BSDI lawsuit and that I would disconnect
my long distance service with AT&T if AT&T didn't drop that suit.

I expected, of course, sort of a yawn from the sales droid.  Instead
the sales droid was very interested and wanted to write down the
details of my complaint, and said that she was going to forward them
to some big-wig somewhere.

However, I agree with James' assessment.  A letter is in the works.

brian@apt.bungi.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI & Our Retaliation
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:47:14 GMT

In article <l7c8pgINN7a1@neuro.usc.edu> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
>In article <4442@hq.hq.af.mil# john@hq.af.mil writes:
>#Several Ideas for retaliation.
>#5) while :
>#   do
>#	ls /usr/spool/news/junk #/tmp/foo
>#	for i in `cat /tmp/foo`
>#	do
>#		mail postmaster@att.com </usr/spool/news/junk/$i
>#	done
>#	sleep 600
>#   done

I give this scheme about ten minutes between the
time someone at AT&T notices it and the time all the
messages the saboteurs send start getting dumped on the
floor.

The bandwidth this takes would inconvenience
everyone on the Internet, not just AT&T.

>#6) Use the tcp wrapper to exclude all att.com connections to
>#your box. wuarchives, uunet, prep, etc. And generally make the net
>#and unfriendly place for AT&T to do business. Kill their forwarded
>#mail. Stomp their packets on your bridges routers and so forth.
>
>Please don't do either (5) or (6) [the part about killing forwarded
>email] -- in some jurisdictions such actions may be considered to be
>criminal -- in other jurisdictions that just seem simply unfriendly.

(5) could be viewed as a denial-of-service attack.
More likely,the worst outcome would be some finger-wagging
from the perpetrator's INternet service provider.

I doubt that (6) is illegal unless it's done by
a system that has common carrier status.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@forel.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: torda@igc.ethz.ch (Andrew Torda)
Subject: trap type 12, 386bsd 0.1, advice please
Organization: Computational Chemistry, ETH, Zuerich
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 08:24:16 GMT

I am getting the following error every few minutes with 386bsd 0.1.

    trap type 12 code=fe2c0000 .... cpl=ffffffff
    panic: trap

Once this was preceded by
    vm_fault (fef2c2a00...) -> 5

Once, I have seen
    panic: syscall

Many times, the thing reboots while and the messges disappear
off the console.
In general, the machine will not run long enough to unpack the
srcdist distribution or even finish the make depend part of
building a kernel.

Any advice ?

Machine details:
386 clone (Blackship), no maths chip, 8M memory
ATI motherboard (ATI-386/B2-33, 64K cache)
AMI BIOS (04/09/90)
video: ET4000 based, DFI VG-5000 with 1 Mb
pc0 <color> at 0x60 irq1 on isa
com1 at 0x3f8 irq4 on isa
com2 at 0x2f8 irq3 on isa
wd0 (MAXTOR LXT-213A> at 0x1f0 irq 14 on isa
fd0 drives 0:1.2M, 1: 1.44M at 0x3f0 irq 6 drq2 on isa

Thanks for any advice
-Andrew
-- 
Andrew Torda, Computational Chemistry, ETH, Zurich, torda@igc.ethz.ch
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: steve@rama.demon.co.uk (Steve Entwistle)
Subject: Beginner's problems with 386BSD
Distribution: world
Organization: None
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 12:01:21 +0000


I've recently installed 386BSD 0.1, and I've got a few problems/questions
that I haven't seen anybody else mention in the (brief) time that I've
been reading this group....

1) How do I talk to my printer ? A /dev/lp device was not created when
   I installed the binary distribution. Is it just a simple matter of
   doing a mknod ? If so, what are the relevant major and minor devices
   numbers ?

2) Should Mtools work straight out of the box ? If for example I issue
   mdir a:  it produces the message init: open: No such file or directory.
   Most of the other mtools commands produce similar messages.

3) When I try and use ktrace, it just says Bad System call - core dumped.

4) How do I configure the system for UK local time ? I tried symlinking
   /etc/localtime to /usr/share/zoneinfo/GB-Eire, but this puts the clock
   about 8 hours ahead.

Any help or (polite!) suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Steve
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Keywords: AT&T 'Death Star' rises over BSDI's horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:49:56 EDT

tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>Maybe I've been reading a New York Times from an alternate universe,
>but I thought AT&T is a bit tight on money these days and doesn't have
>"virtually unlimited funds for legal expenses"... or do you just mean
>"more funds than BSDI"

AT&T probably spends more money on coffee for employees than BSDI will ever
handle.  Assuming they aren't squished like a bug by AT&T's legal staff.

>USL has been publishing press releases saying that Windows NT is the
>real enemy, and they don't care who's Unix you buy, just as long as you
>buy something that looks like Unix... because they'd rather see people
>switch to Unix than Windows NT.

That's because any UNIX[R] you buy is money in AT&T's pocket; they collect
at least the license fee if not all the cash you lay out.  Maybe AT&T
would rather see a cheap hobbyist buy Coherent rather than Windows, but I
somehow doubt it. 

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: michaelv@iastate.edu (Michael L. VanLoon)
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI (!!!!BOYCOTT AT&T!!!!!)
Keywords: AT&T
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:48:15 GMT

In <l6r8i5INN29k@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> larose@thud.cs.utk.edu (Brian LaRose) writes:

>!!!!BOYCOTT AT&T!!!!!

Definitely!!!  And, let them know why!

>I just called AT&T and I'm switching to MCI.  This lawsuit is a bunch of
[...]
>Besides I've always liked
>Murphy Brown (uhhh.  I mean Candice Bergman)  she is sort of the 

I hate to break it to you Brian, but she advertises for U.S. Sprint ;-)
You signed up for the wrong other company. :)  (BTW, I use Sprint and
thought they were an excellent alternative to AT&T even before this
mess.)


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. VanLoon                                     "Ignorance is bliss..."
michaelv@iastate.edu      --       Computer Engineering, Iowa State University
------------------------------------------------------------------------------