HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: Sun,  8 Nov 92 15:33:30 -0800
From: A_Brian_Sturgill_skeptic@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: AmiPro for OS/2
Comment-To: Nico_E_de_Vries@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: A_Brian_Sturgill_skeptic@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

>Well, this is good news for the Describe folks, neither WordPerfect
>nor AmiPro will be true 32-bit apps.

The statement above is as true as this one:  NT won't ship in 1992 and
will never have any applications written for it.

Translated:  AmiPro is NOT a Mirrors application.

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 Disks
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:50:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov10.075040.17648
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>>You're right, my computer won't boot from the Windows disks.  However, it
>>also won't boot from the OS/2 installation disks.  It will boot from the
>>Apple System 6 disk.  Therefore only Apple System 6 is an operating system.
>>
>>--Tim Smith
>
>If your computer will not boot from the OS/2 installation disks send them back.
>Either that or make sure  
>
>A) you have  the disk in the right way up.
>B) you have not trimmed a 5 1/4 disk to fit in a 3.5 slot
>C) you didn't remove the useless hard cover from  the 3.5 disk to fit it in a  
>  5.25 slot. 
>D) the machine  is a 386sx or higher.
>E) The disk is in drive A:
>

I think D was my problem.  Is a 68020 higher than a 386sx?  Or perhaps the
problem was E.  My floppy has no name.

>
>AH WELL MAYBE YOU HAVE NEVER INSTALLED OS/2 2.0
>

Actually, I've installed it more times that I would have liked to, but
fewer times than I should have.  (Why do I want to type the word
"grasshopper" now?)

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: umnoor@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Nasir Ahmed Noor)
Subject: Memory Fregmentation under OS/2
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:07:06 GMT


I use OS/2.

A friend of mine says that there is something wrong with the IBM-compatible's
architecture that under any operating system, memory gets badly fregmented
and every time a block is freed up, x number of bytes are lost. He wanted
to know how good [or bad] this is under OS/2. Does memory gets badly fregmented
under OS/2?

Thanks.

--nasir
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: What I heard from Microsoft about NT
Keywords: NT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:09:11 GMT

In <1992Nov8.144309.16840@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>>Unless NT is based on a hack of BSD4, why should we allow MS to start
>>at 3.1, while the rest of the industry has the guts to start at the
>>beginning?

>What makes you think the rest of the industry starts at the beginning?
>Do you recall a Lotus 000 through Lotus 122, for example? :-)

1,2,3 is part of the NAME -- the version number is additional.

>Also, the OS 9 people seemed to jump right in at 9 (that's because OS 9
>was meant for the 6809, I believe).

That's OS9.  It, too, has version numbers additional and the '9' is
part of the NAME.

>Software I'm working on now is jumping from 1.6 to 3.0 without stopping
>at 2.x.  (We are doing that because 1.6 was based on revision 1.6 of a
>specification document, and 3.0 is based on revision 3.0 of that document.
>We didn't implement a version that matched 2.x of the document, so we
>aren't naming any of our versions 2.x)

I won't make any derogatory comments about your CM practices (if any). 

>For real confusion over versions, try to figure out which Unix goes
>where.  Let's see...32 > 5, so Unix 32V came after System V.  No?
>Well, BSD4 came before 7th Edition, right?  No?  Aaarrrgggghhhh!!!! :-)

Once again, you seem to be confusing NAME with VERSION NUMBER.  For
example, the latest release of System V UNIX is Release 4.2.  I think
Release 4.1 may have been internal or something (since I don't recall
it), but there were definitely Release 4.0 and Release 3.2 products
before it.

Now then, we have Windows/NT as the product, and what is the release
number?  You say that it's 3.1?  Gee, where the hell were all the
releases before that?  A first release with a MAJOR REVISION NUMBER of
*3* is just a *BIT* unusual -- one might even say unprecedented.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS not operating system, film at 11. :-)
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:01:20 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <92308.115001MICHAELB@UCF1VM.BITNET> MICHAELB@UCF1VM.BITNET (Michael `Anti-Microsoft' Brunetti) writes:
>>Only 70million care about DOS.
>>Only 10 million care about Win.
>>Yeah, you're right, I guess that's nobody.
>>
>>petesk@microsoft.com
>>(Figures are estimates)
>
>Yes, but 90% of those who purchase computers don't know anything about them
>and fall into marketing traps by Microsoft.
>
>(Figures are estimates)


And today, 90% of those individuals who buy PC clones get Windows thrown in
the box whether they want it or not.  It is very easy to make a software
product a best seller if the hardware customer always gets it as part of the
standard package.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ......An AMIGA Owner Is My Friend
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:41:28 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <BxFBoK.L4J@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jj8200@meibm4.cen.uiuc.edu (Jacob W Janovetz) writes:
>umnoor@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Nasir Ahmed Noor) writes:
>
>
>>Well, it may seem silly to all of you but I need some material [os/2's strong
>>points] to tell to Amiga owners.
>
>>When I had MS-DOS, my $4000 machine was constantly put down but I knew there
>>was nothing to defend MS-DOS/WINdows with. Now I know that OS/2 is one of the
>>best and most rock solid system in the market but I cant list its high points
>>in comparison with "HIS MAJESTY" *THE* AMIGA ...
>
>>Just to give you an example, "they" say that Amiga does perfect multitasking
>>with an OS which comes only on 2 floppies [compare with OS/2's 30+Meg,
>>or 18 meg for base system]. Now I have no idea how to justify its enormous
>>size.
>
>>You can email me responses.... NO FLAMES PLEASE!!!
>
>>--nasir
>>umnoor@ccu.umanitoba.ca
>
>
>   WWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAaaahhhhhh ha ha ha ha!!!! An Amiga?!?!?  AHHHh ha ha
>ha ha... He he he... ooooh, (time passes)...  Ok, I'm much better now.
>
>   All you have to do is tell them to look at how ugly the "Workbench" is on
>the Amiga compared to a nice, faster graphics environment like OS/2, then let
>them in on the well known fact that the Amiga is a toy.
>.


Tell that to the people who are running 68030 based Amiga systems with
UNIX SVR4.  There are a number of them connected to the INTERNET as
anonymous FTP sites.  Getting software from these systems is neither
better or worse than other sites.

Also note that Commodore just came out with a 68040/25 machine.

And Workbench 2.04, which they are shipping now, is a far cry from the
old original interface.

For normal business apps the Amiga can't hold a candle to Intel boxes, but
for video work and NTSC/PAL compatibility, they are the performance/price
winner.  Check out the graphics on the SciFi channel, MTV, and lots of
independent television stations.

Computers are tools to do a job.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8169 comp.os.os2.misc:35394
From: srife@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Service Pack - Round #2 10-28-92
Date: 4 Nov 92 16:07:27 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <Bx5qrK.I6v@ais.org>, empath@ais.org (Tim Triemstra) writes:
> 
> Not to but in here, but where is a good place to get the SP?  I've seen it
> available in SOFTWAREWATSON.IBM.COM but I don't have enoug temp
> space on my unix server to get it.  Is there a way to get IBM to send
> it or an 800 number BBS or something?
> 
> Thanks.
> Tim.
> (btw: mail would be great cause of scrolling problems.)
> empath@ais.org

I called IBM PC software support for OS/2 and they indicated that the SP
was available on disk... However, they aren't accepting orders until after
November 13th and the shipping and handling totaled to $24.95.
If you wish to get the SP this way, you can call 1-800-3IBMOS2 (strange
number but that's what they said.)

Hope this is what you need.

Scott Rife
Wright State University.
 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 Disks
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:20:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.040929.10001@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>roland@spock.uucp (David A. Braun) writes:
>>Win. 3.1 Disks...
>>
>>Microsoft(r) Windows (TM)
>>        Operating System
>>        ...
>>        1) insert this disk in drive A.
>>        2) type a: and press ENTER.
>>        3) type SETUP and press ENTER.
>>
>>Well, where do I type a: from? I turn on the computer and it says:
>>	"OS not found"
>>So I try installing it like DOS or OS/2. I insert the 'setup' disk in drive
>>and turn on the power... 'Please insert disk with OS in drive and press any
>>key to continue' Hmmmm... This only kinda implies that THERE IS NO OS ON THE
>>WIN 3.1 DISKS!!! ok, no arguement...
>
>You're right, my computer won't boot from the Windows disks.  However, it
>also won't boot from the OS/2 installation disks.  It will boot from the
>Apple System 6 disk.  Therefore only Apple System 6 is an operating system.
>
>--Tim Smith

If  your computer will not boot from the OS/2 installation disks send them back.
Either that or make sure  

A) you have  the disk in the right way up.
B) you have not trimmed a 5 1/4 disk to fit in a 3.5 slot
C) you didn't remove the useless hard cover from  the 3.5 disk to fit it in a  
  5.25 slot. 
D) the machine  is a 386sx or higher.
E) The disk is in drive A:


AH WELL MAYBE YOU HAVE NEVER INSTALLED OS/2 2.0

Martin Smith
msmith@netcom.com

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:46:50 GMT

In <1992Nov10.025631.84134@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

>In article <strobl.721229440@gmd.de>, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>In <4310@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> rvaniwaa@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ronal
>d J. Vaniwaarden) writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>This is not different that MS claiming that you _can_ run Windows on a 286
>>>with 1 mb of ram.  Of course, noone ever does this except to prove that it
>>>can be done.
>>
>>Not so fast! I did that (i.e. run Windows on a 286 with 1MByte)
>>for years, and was quite satisfied with its overall performance.
>>
>>Don't claim that nobody did something sucessfully, just because
>>*you* never did.

>Satisfied with Windows on a 286 with 1 meg?  You're kidding right?  I guess
>you really liked the solitaire game.  

No, I never played solitare, I lack the necessary patience. But I did a lot of
Windows programming on such a machine.

>Yes, on a lark I once installed Windows
>on a DTK 286 with 1 meg of ram and a 40 meg hard drive.  It was one of the most
>pitiful sights I have ever seen.  I shudder to think what it would be like on
>an XT.  Yes it can be done, but it *really* sucks and no claims anyone can
>make will change that.

You never used *really* slow machines, obviously. :-)

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Mark Kovarski <kovarski@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Tseng 8900c
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:23:40 GMT

I believe I read a message from one user, in this conference, where he
had problems getting his Trident 8900c card to work. I have forwarded
the message to IBMNet and it seems like other people are running it
with OS/2 just fine. One user stated that he made no changes to the
hardware/software. It works in all resolutions.

I am sorry, I don't remember who posted it but for the latest drivers
and installation information, you can call the Trident support BBS at
(415)691-1016.

Sincerely,
Mark K.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: cs139121@athena.ecs.csus.edu (Todd Kepus)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"? NO WAY
Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 07:59:19 GMT

In article <7745@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.225251.14539@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <7734@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>[An OS is:]
>>>A suite of programs that insulates application code from the necessities of
>>>dealing directly with the hardware.
>>And a reasonable definition it is, too.
>
>OK, I'll stick with this one; my amendment that it should be able to stand
>alone is based more on a personal impression - that an OS is something that
>turns a hunk of hardware into a running system, capable of doing useful work -
>and I'm not married to it.
>
>>Ok.  DOS fails the test because:
>>1) Anything doing graphics pretty much has to go straight to hardware,
>>the 'insulation' that DOS provides being so worthless.
By the way, I'd just like to say here that I'm glad that DOS doesn't
interfere with the way I like to do graphics.  If NT and OS/2 didn't
mess with graphics hardware, we could run the UNREAL demo on those
platforms.  Since DOS doesn't care about protecting screen memory, it is
a great environment (OS) to run AWESOME demos on.  Including other apps
that directly reference screen memory.

>...but there ARE routines provided; therefore, it passes the test. I make no
>representations about the quality of the insulation provided.
>
>>2) Accessing upper memory.  DOS is so braindead that it requires
>>'extenders' to get outside 640k.  So much for 'insulation' on
>>management of the majority of memory on the machine.
>
>The memory above 640K is not part of the machine architecture that DOS was
>designed for. Further, DOS can make limited use of that memory - just look at
>RAMDRIVE.SYS, for example. Again, I make no representations about the quality
>of the OS.
>
>>Shall I continue?  ;-)
>
>Sure. (But maybe by email, unless we've got some fans of this discussion...)

I'd just like to say that DOS is limited to 640K because of the actual
CPU architecture.  A long time ago, most were content with 256K.  Just
because the memory expands to a point where DOS can no longer access,
doesn't mean that DOS isn't an operating system, its just behind the
times.  That's why OS/2 is cool.  Because it has a flat memory model,
which means that programmers don't have to put up with segments anymore
(thank you intel!)  Likewise, DOS's graphics routines were fine when the
Mono monitors were used, but DOS just hasn't caught up with the advances
in hardware.

Therefore, OS/2 is more of an operating system that DOS.  (And
especially windows which isn't an operating system)

-Todd Kepus  (By the time NT comes out, we'll have OS/3)
From: gthome@dss1.austin.ibm.com (Gerry Thome         (8-2256))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.networking
Subject: Re: ansiterm emulation
Date: 4 Nov 92 21:33:42 GMT
Organization: IBM, Austin

In article <2AF5B303.46D3@tct.com> jim@tct.com (Jim Kunzman) writes:
>A week ago I posted a request for information about IBM's ansiterm
>program which is included in their TCP/IP package.  I wanted to know
>if anyone has gotten satisfactory ansi emulation program.  I have had
>severe problems with the ansi emulation, even when working with IBM's
>RS6000.  It's hard to believe that IBM wouldn't have tested ansiterm's
>emulation with their widely used UNIX based RISC processor.
>
>I did get one reply from someone who is experiencing the same problems
>that I've witnessed.  I did not hear from anyone who was using this 
>program successfully.
>
>All of the problems I've witnessed seem to be related to cursor
>movement, especially when running programs such as less and emacs.
>Does anyone have ansiterm working correctly with an RS6000?  Thanks
>in advance for any feedback.
>
>-- 
>Jim Kunzman at Teltronics/TCT     <jim@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!jim>
>-----
>OS/2 2.0 - 1,400,000+ copies sold.  Sweet dreams Mr. Balmy.

I use ANSITERM and am very happy with it.  I run SMIT and all sorts of 
AIX programs correctly through my ANSTERM session.

Some configuration must be done on an RS/6000 to allow ANSITERM
to run correctly.  I unfortunately do not know what needs to
be done to allow this.  I will try and find out.

Gerry Thome
IBM - Austin
I don't speak for IBM...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.networking
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Banyan Vines and OS/2.
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:09:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.181745.3963@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> u1665462@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes:
>What is the status on the OS/2 2.0 Banyan Vines driver? I would like it very
>much, its November allready, winge winge...
>And has anybody setup Vines 5.0 (6) support in a DOS box? What settings are
>necessary? 
>At the moment it just crashes with "Incorrect DOS version". I have played with
>the DOS version settings, but so far no go...

It apparently works in a specific DOS session.  See Appendix E of your
Installation Guide for details.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | The OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST 2.0g is avail.
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | from 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [You picked the right President, America -- Thanks.]
From: josephc@cco.caltech.edu (Joseph Chiu)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.networking
Subject: HELP!  (Install/Config of IBM TCP/IP 1.2.1)
Date: 10 Nov 1992 08:59:16 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

I have installed TCP/IP 1.2.1 from the Professional Developers Kit (10/92),
and have successfully loaded all software to the system.  However, I can
not get it to work.

I suspect that my configurations are "all wrong" and that not all necessary
files are "all right".   I RTFM'd the TCP/IP Instal/Config documentation,
but I am still at a loss.  I realize that each networking environment is
different, but can someone give a few helpful pointers on what I need to
cover so that I can ensure I am doing everything?

Thank you very much.


-- 
Joseph Chiu, Dept. of Computer Science, Caltech.    josephc@coil.caltech.edu
1-57 California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91126. +1 818 449 5457 
* Now running OS/2, the best software that $89 can buy! (I want TCP/IP/X!) * 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.networking
From: maren@sif.research.ptt.nl (Maren E. van)
Subject: Still no SVGA drivers for Chips & Technologie Video Cards ?????
Organization: PTT Research
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 07:57:50 GMT

Hi, 

I am still looking for SVGA drivers for OS2 2.0 for my Chips & Technologie 
card. I can not be the only person who has this video card ?????


Help me !!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.networking
From: db3l@ans.net (David Bolen)
Subject: Re: close-on-exec/IBM tcpip dev.kit.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:31:42 GMT
Organization: Advanced Network & Services, Inc. - Elmsford, NY

In article <1992Nov10.082459.9024@kvamdata.no> kro@kvamdata.no (Knut Rogde) writes:

>I need to be able to set a close-on-exec flag on the sockets I open, because
>the server is supposed to start new processes (which should not inherit
>any descriptors).
>
>On the UNIX-port I can use fcntl() to set this flag, but this can't be 
>done in IBM's implementation (I believe) because sockets and filedesriptors
>do not come from the same domain.
>
>I would be grateful for any ideas...

You may not have to do anything at all. 

You are correct in that sockets and file descriptors are not the same
with IBM's TCP/IP implementation (and probably others too).  Under
IBM's TCP/IP, sockets are global descriptors, that are technically
accessible by any process.

Your child processes won't technically inherit any sockets - although
if you supply them with one, they'll be able to use it as it is global.
If they allocate new sockets, they will be allocated from the global
socket space, and can't overlap with the sockets the server has open.

So it isn't like an extra copy of the socket is being made for the
child.  No matter how many children your server starts, when the
server decides to close a socket it is using, that socket will be
completely closed.

--
-- David
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
 \              David Bolen             \  Internet: db3l@ans.net      /
  |   Advanced Network & Services, Inc.   \   Phone: (914) 789-5327   |
 / 100 Clearbrook Road, Elmsford, NY 10523  \   Fax: (914) 789-5310    \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.networking
From: assela@marcus.its.rpi.edu (A. Andre Asselin)
Subject: Re: HELP! (Install/Config of IBM TCP/IP 1.2.1)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:26:41 GMT

josephc@cco.caltech.edu (Joseph Chiu) writes:
>I have installed TCP/IP 1.2.1 from the Professional Developers Kit (10/92),
>and have successfully loaded all software to the system.  However, I can
>not get it to work.

Joseph,
   I'm afraid you're going to have to be more specific.  What can't you
get to work?  What have you tried already?  If you could describe
your setup (i.e. what type of hardware and network configuration) and
provide the configuration files (i.e. CONFIG.SYS, etc/resolv, etc.)
it would help to identify the problem.  Feel free to post or email me.
Good luck......
       - Andre Asselin      (assela@rpi.edu)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.networking:2104 comp.protocols.misc:833
From: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.networking,comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a "ONE TO MANY" protocol ?
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:58:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: ra.BxKw1C.Ixt
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, DC

In article <1992Nov10.093253.27111@news.tu-graz.ac.at> tom@piassun1.joanneum.ac.at (Tom Leitner) writes:
>Hi,
>
>For our application we'd need a protocol which supports "ONE TO MANY"
>connections (on top of Ethernet). Is there something like that ? Perhaps
>there is a nifty trick how it can be done with IP networks. 

  There is an IP Multicast specification in a published RFC and it has
a fair bit of implementation experience and seems to work just fine
both for a LAN and for a multi-continent WAN.  Code to implement IP
Multicast for BSD is available for anonymous ftp from
	gregorio.stanford.edu

  IP Multicast is one of the underpinnings of the thrice yearly IETF
audio/video multicast transmissions.  Coincidentally there is an IETF
meeting next week and so a lot of us will be using IP multicast to
tune in to DC from wherever (I believe Australia, Europe, and North
America all tuned in last time).

  A less widely implemented alternative is XTP.  I don't know of any
freely distributable XTP implementation.

Ran
atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil