HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mek@hydrox.enet.dec.com (Mark Klamerus)
Subject: IEEE Mass Storage Ref Model
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 13:17:15 PST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA19972; Thu, 21 Jan 93 13:17:17 -0800
X-Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA07454; Thu, 21 Jan 93 13:17:15 -0800
X-Received: from hydrox.enet; by decwrl.enet; Thu, 21 Jan 93 13:17:15 PST
X-To: comp.org.ieee.usenet
X-Apparently-To: comp.org.ieee.usenet


	Can someone tell me what this is?  I recently had a question
	regarding this in a pros/cons relation to SQL/Database.

	What is this model/methodology?  Does it have a number?
	Is there documentation regarding this on the net?

	thanks,
	Mark Klamerus
Newsgroups: comp.org.ieee
From: cianca@cli.di.unipi.it (Paolo Ciancarini)
Subject: book orders by e-mail
Organization: Dipartimento di Informatica, Universita' di Pisa
Distribution: comp.org.ieee
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:33:01 GMT

I am sorry if this is a FAQ, but I just subscribed
to this newsgroup.

Is there any way of querying IEEE Comp Society
for buying proceedings or books by e-mail?

Many thanks

Paolo Ciancarini

-- 
* Paolo Ciancarini  (cianca@di.unipi.it)            *
* tel:     +39 50 510264 fax: +39 50 510226         *
* address: Dip. di Informatica - University of Pisa *
*          cso. Italia,40        56125 Pisa - Italy *
Newsgroups: comp.org.ieee,comp.privacy,bit.listserv.govdoc-l
From: seifert@netcom.com (Rich Seifert)
Subject: Re: Question: How to register a company for Ethernet product?
Organization: Networks & Communications Consulting
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:34:08 GMT

In article <ISHIKAWA.93Jan20180310@ds5200.personal-media.co.jp>, ishikawa@personal-media.co.jp (Chiaki Ishikawa) writes:
> 
> He vaguely recalls that either IEEE or some organizations have a
> registration mechanism to hand out unique IDs to hardware product
> manufacturers. The ID, I understand, helps to make sure the low-level
> network board have unique identification.
> 
> Will any kind soul let me know where and who to contact to proceed
> with this registration?
> 
> Since this may not be much of an interest to many readers, I would
> appreciate if you could send an e-mail to my e-mail address.
> 

Actually, it may be of interest to a lot of people.

Contact:

Vince Condello
IEEE Standards Office
45 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, NJ 08855


-- 
Rich Seifert                    Networks and Communications Consulting
seifert@netcom.com              (408) 996-0922
                                (408) 996-2860 FAX
"... specialists in Local Area Networks and Data Communications systems"
Xref: sparky comp.org.ieee:635 ieee.general:227
From: sundaram@egr.msu.edu (Divya Sundaram)
Newsgroups: comp.org.ieee,ieee.general
Subject: ARE THE IEEE TRANSACTIONS AVAILABLE ON CD-ROM?
Date: 28 Jan 93 21:35:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Michigan State University, College of Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: eecae.ee.msu.edu


Hi,

I was wondering if the IEEE transactions were available on CD-ROM. This 
should be an economical way of distributing "archives" of specific transactions.
For example, IEEE transactions on DSP Jan 1980-dec 1989 could be made available
on a CD-ROM in ISO format (maybe as TEX documents). Any body know if this is 
being done?  

Enquiring minds want to know ... 8->.

Later
-- 
Thanks
Divya
(sundaram@egr.msu.edu)
Phone:	Office - 517-355-3265
Newsgroups: comp.org.ieee
From: felsberg@zaphod.infosun (Marc Felsberg)
Newsgroups: comp.org.ieee
Subject: Bagdad - Sorry, forwarded posring to wrong group
Date: 21 Jan 1993 14:02:30 GMT
Organization: University of Passau
Distribution: world
Reply-To: felsberg@zaphod.infosun
NNTP-Posting-Host: zaphod.fmi.uni-passau.de


--------------------                                                    __o
   Marc Felsberg        email: felsberg@trillian.fmi.uni-passau.de    _`\<,_
                                                                     (_)/ (_)
                                                                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: felsberg@zaphod.infosun (Marc Felsberg)
Newsgroups: comp.org.ieee
Subject: Industrial Opportunity in Bagdad
Date: 21 Jan 1993 13:31:25 GMT
Organization: University of Passau
Distribution: world
Reply-To: felsberg@zaphod.infosun
NNTP-Posting-Host: zaphod.fmi.uni-passau.de

Ich habe gehoert es gibt immer wieder Leute, die aufregende und nicht ganz alltaegliche jobs in interessanten Laendern suchen:


In article 1241@mala.bc.ca, bigras@mala.bc.ca () writes:
>Industrial Opportunity in Modern Mideast Country:
>
>
>Due to recent western aid programs, additional industrial sites have become 
>available in the Bagdad Industrial Park.
>Iraq is a modern country which has experienced extensive infrastructure 
>development in the last two years including 600 billions in UN aid in 1991.  
>With a stable government it is a model for other countries in the area. 
>Extensive international daily flights service Iraq as it is at the centre of 
>activity in the middle east.  
> 
>Foreigners are eagerly received and are treated like the indigenous populations.
>
>The government of Iraq is eager to encourage foreign companies to establish 
>here. Chemical and nuclear industries are sought in particular.
>
>
>Contact:
>	Development Office
>	Bagdad Industrial Park
>	1 Target Blvd.
>	Bagdad, Iraq



--------------------                                                    __o
   Marc Felsberg        email: felsberg@trillian.fmi.uni-passau.de    _`\<,_
                                                                     (_)/ (_)
                                                                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroups: comp.org.ieee,comp.org.acm
From: retrac%porter.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (John Carter)
Subject: ACM and IEEE copyright rules
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:35:28 MST
Originator: retrac@porter.cs.utah.edu
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: na

I have a number of questions regarding the copyright rules of ACM and IEEE,
and the federal copyright statutes.  I'm a professor at the University of
Utah, so I frequently want to distribute papers that have been published in
ACM or IEEE journals or conference proceedings so that they can be discussed
in an advanced course or seminar.  As I understand the federal copyright
laws, this is allowed for educational purposes as long as I follow certain
guidelines that limit the amount of text that is copied and restrict me from
charging for the copies.  What is not allowed, or at least the Univ of Utah
considers to be disallowed, is for me to put together a collection of papers
on a topic and charge the students for the cost of the copying.  Thus, the
most convenient ways to distribute the papers without "eating" the copying
expenses, leaving the packet at a copy center like Kinko's or copying them
within the department and asking the students to pay some nominal fee to
cover the of the copying, cannot be employed.  This leaves a number of less
satisfying alternatives:

   a. Put the papers on reserve somewhere (e.g., library) and let the
      students make their own copies.  I believe that there is a limit
      to the number of articles that could be put on reserve and copied
      at a time, although I may be mistaken here.

   b. Copy and distribute the papers, but don't charge for the copying costs.

   c. Break the law (not an acceptable solution, although probably common).

   d. Get special permission from the copyright holders (ACM and IEEE)
      to make copies for educational purposes (already allowed), but to
      collect a nominal copying fee (not allowed, as I understand the law).

Do I have a correct understanding of the situation?  Can I as an educator
provide copies of ACM or IEEE copyrighted material (papers) to my students
and collect a copying charge (or let Kinko's etc. do so for me)?  If this is
not normally allowed, which I believe is the case, is there any way to get
explicit permission to do so?  This falls into the category of uses that I
would expect the ACM and IEEE to support (distributing research papers so
that graduate students and faculty could discuss them), and quibbling over
the way that they are actually copied and paid for seems silly.

Thanks.

-- 
John Carter   -*-   Department of Computer Science    -*-   University of Utah

Email: retrac@cs.utah.edu	US mail: 3190 MEB, Salt Lake City, UT  84112
Newsgroups: comp.org.sug,unix.wizards,comp.unix.bsd
From: bitbug@netcom.com (James Buster)
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: POSIX threatens our use of lp/lpr and friends
Organization: Lynx Real-Time Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:28:22 GMT

My question is, why not standardize a general-purpose batch and queueing
mechanism that happens to work for print spooling than just specify a
print spooler? This seems to me much more useful and elegant than the
current 1003.7 effort.
-- 
				James Buster
			     bitbug@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.sug
From: duke@portal.paperboy.osf.org (Duke Robillard)
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: POSIX threatens our use of lp/lpr and friends
Organization: /u1/duke/.organization
	<4169@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> <C1DH9B.5Jv@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Distribution: na
Date: 25 Jan 93 13:31:51


atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson) writes:

     Kind of makes one wonder why the POSIX.7 people didn't use something
   like it as the basis for their work.  [begin sarcasm] I'm sure it
   isn't because they can sell us Palladium for extra cost and then sell
   us Palladium "support" (again extra cost) while they fix it so that it
   works. [end sarcasm]

You know, I've been resisting the urge to defend myself against Atkinson's
uninformed, hysterical attacks, but I've just lost my self-control.  I
know I'll hate myself later for getting into a flame war....

Randall Atkinson hasn't been involved with the 1003.7.1 group at all,
at least not in the last 2.5 years.  If he had spent any time working
with us, he would know that the people on the group are engineers trying
to solve a problem, not marketing types trying to make money off other 
people's misfortune.  

If he has legitmate technical concerns with Palladium, I'd appreciate
it if he brought them forward, rather than posting nasty cracks about
people's motives.

--
Duke Robillard, DoD #0130, duke@osf.org

Newsgroups: comp.org.sug
From: duke@portal.paperboy.osf.org (Duke Robillard)
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: POSIX threatens our use of lp/lpr and friends
Organization: /u1/duke/.organization
	<DUKE.93Jan25133151@portal.paperboy.osf.org>
	<C1FusF.AyE@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Distribution: na
Date: 27 Jan 93 11:08:15


I knew I was gonna get sucked into a flame war...

atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson) writes:
   However, I do think "uninformed" is wholly inaccurate since I TRIED
   to participate in the mock ballot and so I saw that draft (and was very

I didn't mean you were uniformed about the draft.  I meant
you were uninformed about the people working on it.  What
I was complaining about was your attacks on our integrity,
not your opinion of Palladium or the POSIX drafts.

     I _TRIED_ very hard to participate in the mock ballot and I _HAVE_
   sent written comments in via the USPS and I _HAVE_ looked at the draft
   circulated with the mock ballot.  

You've complained that your comments were lost, and implied that
I lost them on purpose.  In fact, when the results of the mock
ballot came out and you told me your comments were missing, I 
responded to you, asking you to send them again and we'd go
through them as we did with the others, and re-issue the results
of the mock ballot.  But you didn't send them again.  

If I were going to participate in the kind of innuendo you've been,
I'd wonder out load whether they exist.  I'm not saying that they
don't exist, I'm just giving an example of the kind of personal
attacks you've been making on 1003.7.1

     Now while I'm sure that Duke personally thinks that POSIX.7 are
   doing The Right Thing, I'm at least as sure that it isn't The Right
   Thing.  On that we're not likely to be agreeing soon.

This is fine.  I'm not even sure *I* think POSIX should be standardizing
on such new stuff.  For example, I think the work on pthreads and XDS 
and XOM, all of which are *this close* to standards, may be a little
premature.  Maybe Ran's right about Palladium.  Let's vote and find out.

But for crying out loud, stop dumping on us personally.

That's it, no more flaming for me.  :->
--
Duke Robillard, DoD #130, duke@ctt.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.bsd,news.sys-admin
From: franzoni@sixter.var.dec.com (Mauro Franzoni)
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: POSIX threatens our use of lp/lpr and friends
Reply-To: franzoni@sixter.var.dec.com (Mauro Franzoni)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:23:32 GMT

In article <C15sst.JqA@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, Ran Atkinson
<atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil> writes:
> Subject: IMPORTANT: POSIX threatens our use of lp/lpr and friends

|>   In the past there was a clear emphasis on standardising the existing
|> practices of the UNIX community.  This lead to IEEE standard 1003.1
|> which standardised the core of the UNIX system interfaces (Section 2
|> of the UNIX manual) and IEEE standard 1003.2 which standardised
|> existing practice for the shell and command line utilities.  These
|> were both mostly good for the UNIX community because they enhanced the
|> portability of existing software and users.
At first, POSIX is *NOT* a standardization of UNIX(tm),  POSIX is a definition
of a standard
operating system.
The fact POSIX looks like U*X, is because U*X is one of the more spread and
`standard'
operating system on the market.
It's true that POSIX was born on the U*X community request for standardization,
but POSIX
is not U*X.

|>   There IS a way to prevent this.  
There IS another way: ask your U*X dialect producer/distributor *NOT* to change
anything,
*NOT* to confrom to POSIX or, at least, to keep backward (old) compatibility
...
The fact you don't like POSIX, doesn't mean that POSIX is bad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Mauro Franzoni			|
franzoni@sixter.var.dec.com	|                              blue like a blues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Standard disclaimers apply: the above note is my own personal opinion, and not 
necessarily the opinion of my past, present or future employer.
========================================================================
=========
Xref: sparky comp.org.sug:619 comp.org.usenix:1348 comp.unix.wizards:5580 comp.unix.bsd:11643
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: comp.org.sug
Subject: MIT and Palladium (was Re: IMPORTANT: POSIX threatens ...)
Date: 26 Jan 1993 18:38:38 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


In article <C1FusF.AyE@ra.nrl.navy.mil> atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson) writes:
>unhappy about the draft ignoring both the existing practice of lp/lpr
>-- recall that MIT _removed_ Palladium from most of its systems
>because MIT felt it was less useful than just using existing practice
>such as lp/lpr and friends -- and the POSIX.2 precedent of

I don't claim to speak for MIT, or even to have a very good knowledge of
what's going on there, but here's what I sorta remember about the history
of Palladium.

   MIT Project Athena started out with 4.3BSD, including lpr and friends.
   They made some changes to the lpr suite, such as using Hesiod for the
   printcap information and having workstations spool directly to the
   print server rather than spooling locally and again on the print
   server.  This became the production print system for Athena, which is
   the production academic computing environment at MIT.

   Seeing the need for a better print system they wrote the spec for
   Palladium.  Then they implemented it.  This first implementation,
   like anything new, had lots of bugs.  At the point where they had planned
   to install it as the production system it wasn't considered stable
   enough for that purpose.  So they continued with lpr.

   Meanwhile Project Athena was ending, meaning a considerable reduction
   in dollars for development.  The money and enthusiasm were just not there
   to continue Palladium development.  The Athena system continues as
   the production computing facility, paid for out of MITs own budget.
   They get by with a few more hacks to lpr.  What was done on Palladium
   is out there; and anybody who wants to continue working on it may do so.

So I would argue that "less useful than just using existing..." doesn't
mean lpr is better than Palladium would have been; but rather than
Palladium at one point in time needed more work than MIT was willing or
able to put into it.
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!"
"No it aint!  But ya gotta know the territory!"
        Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"

Newsgroups: comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.bsd,news.sys-admin
From: tweten@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Dave Tweten)
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: POSIX threatens our use of lp/lpr and friends
Organization: NAS Systems Division, NASA Ames
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 22:28:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.192822.7976@netcom.com> bitbug@netcom.com (James Buster) writes:
>My question is, why not standardize a general-purpose batch and queueing
>mechanism that happens to work for print spooling than just specify a
>print spooler? This seems to me much more useful and elegant than the
>current 1003.7 effort.

That is, in fact, one way to look at the 1003.15 effort, currently in ballot.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Tweten						tweten@nas.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center, M/S 258-5			     (415) 604-4416
Moffett Field, CA  94035-1000				FAX: (415) 604-4377
Newsgroups: comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.bsd,news.sys-admin
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: POSIX threatens our use of lp/lpr and friends
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 17:24:26 GMT


>So what *is* its concept and user interface? The debate about
>palladium seems a bit weak as (except one person) nobody in this group
>(comp.unix.bsd) seems to know how palladium really looks like and how
>it works.

And that's the problem I have with it. I had never heard of
Palladium until the first posting of this thread. The generally
very knowledgeable readership of comp.unix.bsd didn't know
much about it. Why is anyone considering putting something
none of us knows about into a standard? 



-- 
Dave Eisen                               Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU              Home:                (415) 321-5154
       There's something in my library to offend everybody. 
          --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
Newsgroups: comp.org.sug,ne.jobs,ne.wanted,biz.jobs.offered,misc.jobs.offered,misc.jobs.misc,misc.jobs.offered.entry
From: troll@sug.org (A. Newman)
Subject: Salesperson wanted at Sun User Group
Followup-To: sender
Keywords: commission, sales
Organization: Sun User Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:21:51 GMT



SALES PERSON

The Sun User Group is seeking a full- or part-time commissioned
salesperson for their Brookline, MA office.  This is an excellent
position for a student or other person who cannot commit to full-time
employment.  Hours are flexible, including some evening hours if
desired, and compensation is above industry standard.  There is no
cold calling or travel involved.

The ideal candidate would have a good telephone manner, the ability to
follow-through on projects without close supervision, and experience
in similar work (telemarketing, fund-raising, or telephone sales).
Knowledge of UNIX and Sun workstations is helpful but not required.

The Sun User Group, Inc., is an international, not-for-profit,
technical and professional association. Our members are users,
developers, programmers, manufacturers, and resellers of hardware and
software either produced or licensed by Sun Microsystems, or which
expands or enhances the capabilities of such equipment.

For further information, please contact Alex Newman at the Sun User
Group.

Sun User Group 			(617) 232-0514 voice
1330 Beacon St., #315		(617) 232-1347 fax
Brookline, MA 02146		office@sug.org email




Xref: sparky comp.org.sug:626 comp.org.usenix:1366 comp.unix.wizards:5608 comp.unix.bsd:11709
From: nickel@cs.tu-berlin.de (Juergen Nickelsen)
Newsgroups: comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: POSIX threatens our use of lp/lpr and friends
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:02:50 GMT
Organization: STONE Project, Technical University of Berlin, Germany
Reply-To: nickel@cs.tu-berlin.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: tempest.cs.tu-berlin.de
In-reply-to: osyjm@cs.montana.edu's message of Wed, 20 Jan 1993 19:44:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.194433.8635@coe.montana.edu>
osyjm@cs.montana.edu (Jaye Mathisen) writes:

> Can somebody please explain why palladium is a bad system?  I personally
> don't like the hassle of the eclectic mix of lp and lpr and find it
> a pain in the butt.

Someone else mentioned that there isn't even real information who
sells palladium, but I don't think this was the information the
original poster was looking for (at least I don't).

The strongest objection against palladium was based on its concept and
user interface. 

So what *is* its concept and user interface? The debate about
palladium seems a bit weak as (except one person) nobody in this group
(comp.unix.bsd) seems to know how palladium really looks like and how
it works.

--
Juergen Nickelsen
Newsgroups: comp.org.sug
From: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson)
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: POSIX threatens our use of lp/lpr and friends
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, DC
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:10:22 GMT

In article <4169@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

>BRL's MDQS (or MQDS, I'm sure I'll get yelled at again for spelling
>it wrong) does most of the above except for page seek...

  And BRL's code has been around for years, is known to work
reasonably well on several platforms, is nicely general, the code is
nicely portable, the code is freely distributable, ...

  Kind of makes one wonder why the POSIX.7 people didn't use something
like it as the basis for their work.  [begin sarcasm] I'm sure it
isn't because they can sell us Palladium for extra cost and then sell
us Palladium "support" (again extra cost) while they fix it so that it
works. [end sarcasm]

  Any matter, the main thing is that users and sys admins take a good
hard look at the POSIX proposal and seriously examine whether it is
suitable or not.  If there is a consensus it is good (IMHO unlikely)
then all is well, if the consensus is the other way the key thing is
to make sure that the users concerns are heard.  Having no standard is
much better than having a bad standard, IMHO.