HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gkm@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (gary.k.mc nees)
Subject: Re: Password protected folders (Was: Re: Lost a possible NT person)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:59:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.192153.3210@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>In article <1992Oct02.171717.23461@watson.ibm.com>, cnadler@vnet.ibm.com (Cliff
>Nadler) writes:
>|> FYI, IBM has a package available for purchase called the RESTRICTED SHELL.
>|> What this package does is create a folder class that enables password access
>|> and a few other features. Call your local IBM rep (not the OS/2 numbers) to
>|> get more info.
>|> 
>What a poor attempt to reach some sort of security. All you have to do is
>boot OS/2 from diskette. This RESTRICTED SHELL is exactly as useful as some
>tricky batch programming in AUTOEXEC.BAT on DOS-Systems
>
>Christoph
>-- 
>Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
>BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
>Fido: 2:243/660


Unless one has password protection on boot-up one can easily overcome the
protection of UNIX also. So Your assertion above is ...

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:37:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct11.012619.59727@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.202607.14857@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de>, hochstae@allfiwib
>1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>>
>>Sorry, but you are wrong. Netw*re lite does not run under OS/2 it actually
>>runs in *ONE* DOS-Session. What use do I have of OS/2, when I can access
>>Network drives in only one DOS-Session. I can use native DOS instead.
>
>Hmmm, lemme get this strait.  I am running OS/2.  I am running a DOS based
>program under OS/2.  This DOS based program is a networking program.
>Therefore I do not have the ability to run networking under OS/2.  Makes sense
>to me.  (NOT!)

     Actually, if the information in the paragraph you are responding
to is correct, then I would say that you _don't_ have the ability
to run Netware Lite under OS/2.  You have the ability to run it in a
single DOS session under OS/2, which is quite different.  The network
drives would be accessible only by that session, which seems to be
of limited utility.


>There are other programs available.  This was an example.  Please keep that in
>mind.  There are OS/2 based peer-to-peer networking packages expected to
>arrive shortly.

     Interesting.  In the last post I replied to, you told me that
Cairo was irrelevant because it wasn't released yet.  Why are these
unreleased peer products for OS/2 a valid topic for discussion?
     I seem to recall an old adage about glass houses - you may want
to look it up.

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy)
Subject: Re: CSD, Service Packs, etc. How? When? Where?
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:40:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.203247.31419@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>
>>The beta can be ordered.  IBM has a toll-free number, but I don't know
>>it.
>>
>1-800-IBM-3040 and it is totally free.

...and check those disks for bad sectors before you try to install the
OS/2 2.00.1 (whatever) beta: I didn't found (finally!) 3 bad ones,
meaning that I'd reformatted to disk without the chance to try the beta!

I'm back to Windows!
>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:27:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.165052.4663@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.172240.23831@tandon.com> tdbear@tandon.com (Tom Barrett) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.015224.26561@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>>What would the basis for a lawsuit be? If IBM is allowed to
>>>sell their cloned 486s as part of a board and they are doing
>>>so, where is the problem? 
>>
>>It depends on what the *intent* of the agreement was...
>
>Whose intent?
>
>>Intel will most
>>likely argue that they were "tricked" into this language...
>>sure they were :)
>
>Actually, I think the patent/foundry issue is even more serious.
>The sad thing for Intel is that even if by some miracle they
>manage to get the ruling reversed, Cyrix can always do an
>outright SALE of the design to TI (with royalty arrangements)
>and that would be completely kosher under the letter and
>spirit of the law.


Could you guys please take this topic to another conference?  I'm having
trouble wading through the volume of mail here anyway, and this topic 
doesn't fall under os2 advocacy.  Thanks.

Ted
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:18:50 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:

>You are talking about 16-bit Windows. But the future of Windows will
>be 32-bit Windows. There will be WIN32s for Windows 3.1 in the next
>PDK, which is a subset of the NT WIN32 subsystem. Developers will start
>writing 32-bit Windows apps. WIN32 apps, either on WIN32s or on NT won't
>need any DOS, they don't use INT21 etc.

But which are you going to code for? I still see a dilemma for development
with NT. Either you write for Win32, and accept that it won't run under
Win3.1, but gain all the bells and whistles, or you write for Win32s in
which case you get support for Win3.1, but lose much of the Win32 
advantage. Or you write some crazy code that adjusts and only uses 
threads etc., when it knows it's in a Win32 environment - yowch.

And this is by design? Must have been a committee.

Tom
From: Pete.Skelly@f1.n100.z60.wlink.nl (Pete Skelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:17:19 -0100

Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct12.210036.27969@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
> In <1992Oct10.035521.12965@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Oct9.193428.29875@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
> >> In <1992Oct08.092757.16811@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> Networking packages aren't like stripped-down versions of common software.
> >> >> Including full-function TCP/IP networking in NT is like including
> >> >> Weird...er...Word for Windows: nobody in their right mind would try to
> >> >> compete. Why should FTP Software develop an NT version of PC/TCP, when you're
> >> >> throwing in an equivalent package with the OS (and cranking up the price to
> >> >> cover it)?
> >> 
> >> >Why should DR develop another DOS when MS DOS covers that base?
> >> 
> >> Not quite the same thing, Pete.  What he's talking about is someone
> >> writing something that you would need NT to run, when NT already
> >> includes a full-blown version of that functionality.  Your example is
> >> more along the lines of someone producing a better NT (including
> >> networking, plus a bunch of things that NT won't do).  His point is
> >> valid.  How many copies of a package to do X am I likely to be able to
> >> sell if the ability to do X is already built into the thing my package
> >> requires in order to run?
> 
> >Oh, sorry, bad example I guess, didn't get the point across.
> 
> >How about "Why should Norton develop Norton Desktop".
> 
> Because the Progman/File Manager paradigm stinks?
Lots of people like it.

> 
> >Added functionality you say?
> 
> >Bingo, I say.
> >Now apply that argument to basic network stuff.
> 
> Ah, so you're saying that anyone who really wants a usable system is
> going to have to pitch the included network stuff anyway?  So how come
> everyone who buys NT is going to have to pay for it when they're going
> to need to replace it with something usable anyway?
> 
> [No, I don't expect MS to ship badly broken network stuff -- which is
> just my point.  Once again, the example doesn't really fit very well.]

The only examples that fit well by your standards seem to be the items
of discussion themselves, which we haven't seen yet.

I would remind you that it's good to point out the errors in my examples,
but ignoring any good portions of examples is a poor practice.  You may
be passing up information that may be useful.

Please re-read my posts and try to understand the idea I was getting 
accross, and point out the flaws instead, because that type of information
is useful to all of us.  Please also look for valid points.  Nit-picking
my examples to bits is not reall useful, because it doesn't really
explain where the main concept is in error.  Unless you enjoy Nit-Picking,
that is.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7072 comp.sys.intel:1884 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:26317
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC or (P5 & P6)?
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:40:49 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <21622@global.hacktic.nl>, peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser) writes:
| doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
| 
| >IBM is selling it's own 80386-compatable and Intel486(R)-compatable chips
| >to some Asian manufacturers.
| 
| No, IBM can't do that since IBM signed a contract with Intel that it would only
| use it's 386's IBM's own products. So IBM can't sell the 386 chips, but it can
| sell motherboards and systems with it's own 386.

  There are enough rumors about this that I wonder. After all, look at
all the Mac clones that used ROMs sold by dealers as "spare parts,"
which was not illegal. Now Apple only does exchanges on ROMs (I'm told).
-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:47:09 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct12.054512.11151@frog.CRDS.COM> rmk@frog.CRDS.COM wrote:
> In article <1992Oct07.101657.16483@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct6.084217.28802@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com wrote:
> >> In article <1992Oct5.215925.6501@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> >>
> >> 
> >> Regardless of the drivel below that underestimates the multi-user and 
> >> file protection mechanisms of UNIX. Be it true or not, it does not actually 
> >> address the question that was asked. 
> >> 
> >> IS NT multi-user.
> >> 
> >> In the traditional and widely held ( non-MS  ) view of multi-user I.E 
> >> CONCURRENT MULTIPLE USERS ON A SINGLE MACHINE/CPU not Win NT 3.1 is 
> >> NOT!!! multi-user.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Martin Smith
> >> msmith@netcom.com 
> >> 
> >> 
> >Okay, I guess I've had my head in the sand or something.  I have yet to
> >see anyone use a multiuser system as you seem to think it is.  How
> >does one hook 5 mice up to a computer so 5 people can use it.  How does
> >one hook 5 keyboards up.
> >
> >THE SCREEN DEVICE OF NT ONLY ALLOWS ONE USER TO HAVE OWNERSHIP OF IT.
> >
> >Everything else is pretty much multiuser.  Each process has it's own
> >user/security context.  I can run processes on someone elses machine
> >when they're logged on.  These processes run under my security context.
> >
> >What is more multiuser than that?  having 5 keyboards and 5 mice
> >hooked up and one screen so 5 people can type on the screen at one time?
> >
> >SHEESH.
> 
> 
> 1. Get a 486/50 and load UNIX and X.
> 
> 2. Add 4 Xterminals.
> 
> 3. Five people can now log in and run X sessions.
> 
> This is old news.
Okay, let me try.

1. Get a 486/50 and load NT onto it.  (no X).
2. Add 4 Windows machines
3. 5 people can now run windows sessions, accessing the same data.
   and potentially the same processing power of the 486.

The only differences I really see are.
1) The windows stations require a hard drive.
2) The windows stations can run things independently of
   the server.
NOT: I don't know the price of X terms today, but I'd suspect
a 386sx box isn't that much more.

Also, come to think of it, now the Windows for Workgroups is out,
you can do a lot of this with that product.

In fact, you can probably do this with OS/2, AmigaDOS, etc.

So yes, this is old news.

petesk@microsoft.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: NT delivery date
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:22:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.003635.16532@leland.Stanford.EDU> yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong) writes:
>I read in Computer Shopper that at a press conference, Microsoft says that
>they are going to deliver NT by year's end afterall.
>
>Does anyone know whether this is true?  And is the code going to be reasonably
>bug free?
>
>If the answer is positive to the above two questions, OS/2 is in *deep*
>trouble.

One thing to say: Pffffffft.  I'll let you wonder whether that was for
NT being out by year's end, whether the code will be bug free, or whether
OS/2 is in deep trouble.  I'm sure you'll be doing that anyway.

Ted
From: garyng@gnct.com (garyng)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 00:52:07 HKG-8
Organization: Global Network Communication Technology Co.

soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:

> In article <XT3JsB3w165w@gnct.com> garyng@gnct.com (garyng) writes:
> >soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:
> >
> >> Brian, you seem to indulge yourself too much in this point, but don't
> >> you think it is too early to predict?  OS/2 2.0 is out for six or seven
> >> months now.  Compared to Windows 3.x, it is a way too short a time...
> >
> >If you are comparing Windows 3.x apps against OS/2 2.0 apps. I believe one
> >have to count out all the OS2 1.x apps. to make it fair.
> >
> >-gary
> >
> 
> In that case, shouldn't you count Windows 2.x and even 1.x apps, too?
> 
> Min
> 
> 

No, you should not count Window apps before 3.x in comparison against OS2 2.0.
If a Window app. only goes to 2.x I won't even look at it.

-gary
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:14:03 GMT
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1992Oct7.073424.2387@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>>Excuse me but you can rlogin as many users as you so desire from as many
>>windows as you desire under X-Windows.  
>>
>>Under SCO Unix you can have up to 12 virtual ternminals
>> ( Even character based ) from the console each of 
>>which is a seperate login to the machine and can be logged in as i
>>different users.
>>
>> Brian have you used UNIX ????
>
>You can do this under NT too.  NT's Windowing System, just as
>under X, causes the display hardware it attaches to, to belong
>to a single user during the duration of that login session.
>I.E. when user joe starts X, then joe owns that X session.

This part we already know, but...

>NT is better than many X's in that when joe logs in, only joe
>and those users joe allows can write on joes screen, create
>windows, etc.

you didn't give any explanation on NT's rlogin and virtual
terminal capabilities.  How does NT do the trick?  Could you care
to explain?

Thanks,

Min
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.x would loose its battle against Windows NT if...
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:41:44 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct9.113656.8714@cam-orl.co.uk>, thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
 writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.154329.1557@cs.mcgill.ca>, gumby@cs.mcgill.ca (Phil PRANNO
) writes:
>|> The WPS is CUA 91 compliant.
>
>So CUA 91 allows you to put a menu partially off-screen where you can't
>actually access some of the items?

So you use the scroll bars which automatically appear when something is either
partially or completely off the screen to get to it.  What's the big deal?
>
>|> This means that there is RESEARCH and lots of it behind the entire
>|> concept.
>
>I think perhaps they need to go away and do a little more research...
>
Or maybe you do...

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
From: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Infoworld extracts
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:59:35 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Well, since a certain person on this newsgroup (who will remain 
anonymous) :) likes to post bits of trade rag articles, I guess
I will post one too.  Here goes.

NT'S DELAYS MEAN A SECOND LOOK AND RESPECT FOR OS/2
Infoworld, October 12, 1992
Page 17

(posted without permission--I hope that is ok)

By Shawn Willett

"IBM's OS/2 operating system will pick up momentum while Microsoft
Corp.'s Windows NT is stalled in development, according to analysts'
predictions.

According to several market research firms, OS/2 not only will gain
a significant edge in installed base next year, but users tired of
waiting for Microsoft may switch to IBM's platform.

'[Microsoft] will definitely lose some people to OS/2,' said Jeff 
Henning, analyst at BIS Strategic Decision Inc., in Norwell, Mass.
'Microsoft has been saying for so long that they will ship it this
year.'

Research analysts are busy recalculating earlier figures that predicted
Windows NT would shortly overtake IBM's OS/2--an operating system some
observers had virtually written off not to long ago.

[some stuff about many OS/2's shipping before NT becomes a real 
product--also stuff about projected installed base in the future]

Graph:  WINDOWS NT AND OS/2 OUTLOOK
        Projected U.S. installed base 

1991
OS/2  590,000
NT    0

1992
OS/2  1,210,000
NT    0
 
1993
OS/2  1,850,000
NT    360,000

1994
OS/2  2,450,000
NT    1,230,000

1995
OS/2  3,050,000
NT    2,840,000

That's it.  I would tend to think that the OS/2 installed base will 
increase at a greater rate, especially in 1993.  I don't know about
NT.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Charles A. Thompson      | thompson@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu         |
| University of Kansas     | thompson@ukanvax.cc.ukans.edu        |
| > They call me SkiBum <  | OS/2, Bush, & Rush Limbaugh in '92   |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Look for Recipe Pro(tm), an interactive recipe database, in '93 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. NT
Keywords: OS/2, NT, Windows
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY, 12866
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:24:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.195552.18438@u.washington.edu> mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth) writes:

Everyone.... read the following carefully:

>Do what many of us are doing.  Run OS/2 now, evaluate NT as it progresses and 
>then make an informed decision.


How simple.... use what's available now, and when something that might
be better comes out, we'll check it out.  

QED


Of course, with that attitude, this newsgroup would die.



-- 
Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@skidmore.edu
Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391

[.... old sig has been retired.  New sig isn't ready yet. ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:45:43 GMT

petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.202207.9735@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu wrote:
>> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> 
>> >BTW:  The product Zachmann has spent the most time criticising lately
>> >is Windows NT.  He'd criticised it before he'd even seen it, hardly
>> >professional in my book.
>> 
>> This happens to be the same reason a lot of OS/2 advocates think
>> most of the press is either bought or off in their own world.
>> OS/2 has gotten a lot of criticism from people who've never even
>> seen it.

>That's why I usually take the press with a grain of salt.

Agreed.  Unfortunately, because of the difference in numbers of pro-OS/2
and pro-Windows authors, there are quite a few people who blow their top
when an OS/2 advocate writes unprofessionally, but are blind when a
Windows advocate does the same thing.  I take it you are not one of them?
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7141 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32:1398
From: karlth@rhi.hi.is (Karl Thoroddsen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32
Subject: Re: Multiuser (was Re: MS's misconduct!)
Date: 8 Oct 92 09:04:39 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy

In <1992Oct8.022746.17575@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:

>In  <1992Oct07.101657.16483@microsoft.com>  petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>> THE SCREEN DEVICE OF NT ONLY ALLOWS ONE USER TO HAVE OWNERSHIP OF IT.
>>
>> Everything else is pretty much multiuser.  Each process has it's own
>> user/security context.  I can run processes on someone elses machine
>> when they're logged on.  These processes run under my security context.
>>

Does NT allow multiple Screens per machine?

>Thanks for that posting Pete, your sentence in upper case finally made
>me understood, what is meant by "only one interactive user at a time".
>So, if there will be a Telnet-Daemon for NT, either from MS or a third-
>party-vendor, it could spawn a CMD.EXE and let a user do some tasks
>under his security context, while another user is using the machine
>locally. I hope, I got that right.

>> What is more multiuser than that?  having 5 keyboards and 5 mice
>> hooked up and one screen so 5 people can type on the screen at one time?
>>
>> SHEESH.
>>

>Of course you are right, that it makes few sense
>to have a machine with 5 keyboard/mice and only one screen.

But it makes sense to hook up 5 keyboard/mice/SCREENS to the same machine.
I remember reading somewhere that NT doesn't support this dumb terminal
concept and thus NT is classified by some as not being multiuser.

Pete, please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Ciao.
 
-- 

\ Internet: karlth@rhi.hi.is             \ Karl Thoroddsen University Of Iceland
 \ Respect...            , Peter Ustinov  \ Department Of Computer Science
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy