HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crudolph@seg7.cigseg.rtsg.mot.com (Chuck Rudolph)
Subject: Looking for a compiled version of groff
Organization: Motorola Inc.  Arlington Heights, IL
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:50:17 GMT
Keywords: groff apollo hpux 88open


Does anyone have a compiled version of groff that they are willing to
share.  I need it on one of the following platforms:
         Apollo DN4500 at SR10
         HP730 at HPUX8.07
         88open

I need to evaluate it, but I'm having problems with our C++
compilers.

-- 
Chuck Rudolph                | Electronic: chuck.rudolph@cigseg.rtsg.mot.com
Motorola Inc, N349           |             uunet!motcid!cigseg!chuck.rudolph
1501 West Shure Drive        | Voice: (708) 632-2779   Fax: (708) 632-5694
Arlington Heights, IL  60004 | Disclaimer: It's mine... All mine...
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: What has AT&T done now?
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:12:49 GMT
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

I don't want to interrupt the discussion of where to post the
boycott notice, but could someone explain what AT&T has done
to provoke this?  Thanks.

-david
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk)
Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:35:44 GMT

In article <MOSS.92Sep1114400@ibis.cs.umass.edu> moss@cs.umass.edu writes:

>William> I am once again dismayed at the responses made by supposedly
>William> intelligent individuals to affairs which do indeed affect all
>William> of us. Perhaps some people simply don't se the connections.

>We get along in this environment because people follow the conventions.

I think if you look real closely, the majority of articles on
Usenet have two forms. One is technical information content, and
the second is dissent. If we really followed conventions, as you
suggest we do, the volume of articles and e-mail would drop 
substantially, I suggest, to the level of overall traffic we saw 
on the net perhaps three or four years ago.

>Whether or not you personally agree with the conventions, you are better 
>off following them than risking the negative peer pressure that will result 
>if you post to a lot of newsgroups. 

I am afraid that this very nice 1950's Hollywoodish concept is wasted here.

>There are other boards for this kind of thing. This is
>all part of getting along with real people in the real world.

Thank you for your rather patronizing close. Strange how you mentioned
negative peer pressure above, and in the end, missed your own message.

Bill Vajk
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,news.groups
From: "eddf12::roberts"@frais.enet.dec.com (Nigel Roberts)
Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
Organization: IC software a.g. (on contract at DEC)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:20:36 GMT

> conversation, but anyone who should not want to listen to what Bill has
> to say then should have  a newsreader that supports kill files and then 

(Flame. Flame. Flame.)

My newsreader doesn't seem to support kill files. In fact I consider myself
lucky that my newsreader supports the fact my workstation is outside
the mainstream of DEC's internal network.

Do I complain to the person who wrote the newsreader? I do not.
Why? Because I am using a VMS system, and the the only newsreader
available was written by someone out of the goodness of their heart.
I am truly grateful to him for that.

And for what it does (act as a client for a U*x server elsewhere in the
network) it does it remarkably well.

But what you are saying is that if I haven't the capability of using kill 
files, I shouldn't be reading newsgroups with a low signal-to-noise ratio. 
Bah. Humbug.

Who is this Bill person anyway?


Nigel Roberts	   | roberts@frais.enet.dec.com      | Tel. +44 206 396610 
European Engineer  | P O Box 49,Manningtree,CO11 2SZ |  &   +49 6103 383 489 
G4IJF		   | "Life is but a tale . . . "     | FAX  +44 206 393148 

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: Since when has programming been free? (was Re: Time to boycott Photo CD
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 18:17:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.071820.4483@dmc.com> munroe@dmc.com (Dick Munroe) writes:
>I beg your pardon, but programming has NEVER been such a career.  It has ALWAYS
>cost money, until recently LOTS of money, to indulge in a programming career.

Excuse me?  Are you intentionally dense, or is it a matter of genetics?  Noah
wrote:

In article <FRIEDMAN.92Sep1184721@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug31.134159.9893@pica.army.mil> SteveWall@aol.com (Steve Wall) writes:
>>>If a programmer doesn't like 
>>>the way patents affect his freedom, he's welcome to find a career more 
>>>suitable to his ethical/political standards.  
>>    Once upon a time, programming was such a career.  Why should we have to
>> throw it away?

Not that it was free, but that a programmer could work without the bullshit
that has been coming out of the patent office recently.

>Then came the 70s and, thanks to DEC, machine prices dropped by a factor of 10
>or so.  

Yeah, those microcomputers available in the '70's for under $5k had
*nothing* to do with it, or with the growing popularity of programming.
Nope, nosiree.

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "You can't get lost in one room, no matter how
sef@kithrup.COM  |  little effort you make to learn your way around."
-----------------+    -- William E Davidsen (william@crd.GE.COM)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2840 comp.org.eff.talk:5600 comp.unix.bsd:4948 comp.os.mach:1117 news.groups:17406
From: dschieb@muse.cv.nrao.edu (Darrell Schiebel)
Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory
	<UecUwQO00iUz81B9Qv@andrew.cmu.edu> <1992Sep1.090548.8351@uhura1.uucp>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:53:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.090548.8351@uhura1.uucp> bryan@uhura1.uucp (Bryan Curnutt) writes:
   In article <UecUwQO00iUz81B9Qv@andrew.cmu.edu> sean+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sean McLinden) writes:
>  >
>  >I suspect that the best way to approach this would be a general posting to
>  >the entire netnews community informing them, in a succinct manner, what is
>  >the situation, what are the issues and alternatives, and what is the
>  >recommended course of action (switching long distance carriers).
>  >
>  >[...] It should be
>  >posted to ALL newsgroups as it affects all of us.
>   It should NOT be posted to all newsgroups.
>   First, it does not affect "all of us."  People reading news under
>  VMS, DOS, MacOS, and other non-UNIX operating systems may not care
>  about AT&T's legal actions regarding UNIX.

	While there are probably several groups which would NOT
	be appropriate to post news relating to Mach and the
	fate of BNR2, I would think most of the "comp.<whatever>"
	groups WOULD be appropriate places to post because this
	sort of software litigation has wide ranging effects on the
	entire industry.

>  Second, a huge number of newsgroups are clearly inappropriate for
>  this type of posting.  Readers of rec.music.gdead or sci.aquaria
>  or even comp.sources.unix really don't need to have "Boycott AT&T"
>  messages shoved in their faces.

	Probably you are right here, these are probably not appropriate
	places to post a Mach/BNR2 message, and at any rate people
	who might be interested in computer related issue probably read 
	one of the "comp" newsgroups.

... deleted netiquette commentary

>  Bryan Curnutt
>  bryan%uhura1@uunet.uu.net



Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,news.groups
From: learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk)
Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:36:20 GMT

In article <EDWI5ZL@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>In article <MJB.92Sep1163324@oak7.doc.ic.ac.uk> Matthew J Brown writes:

>>IMHO this issue is only of much importance to computing professionals.

>IMHO it's not. AT&T is effectively expanding intellectual property 
>protection in general. 

Not quite true. It is more akin to Henry Ford protecting the concept of
assembly lines for his sole use. And anyone who has ever seen an assembly
line is forever banned from manufacturing.

>I disagree with broadcast posting this sort of call to every group on other
>grounds, but to claim that only computing professionals have an interest in
>intellectual property laws is ridiculous.

Actually, so do I. On the other hand, the pot needed a bit of stirring,
this being the beginning of a new academic year. I am bored with the
periodic trotting out of the same tired litanies. With any luck, they're
out of the way for a while.

Bill Vajk
From: pwo@ztivax.UUCP (Peter W Osel)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Add target `uninstall' to GNU Makefiles
Keywords: GNU Coding Standards
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:32:35 GMT
Organization: Siemens AG, Munich, Germany


I would like to see a target `uninstall' in GNU Makefiles, to undo
an install target.  Removing a package from your machine would then
be as easy as installing it.  (e.g. uninstall gcc-1.xx, before
installing gcc-2.x).  Should this be included in the GNU Coding
Standards paper?

	--pwo

--
Peter W. Osel			Email:		pwo@ztivax.zfe.siemens.de
Siemens AG - HL CAD 4		Phone:		+49 (89) 4144-3825
P.O.B.: 80 17 09		Fax:		+49 (89) 4144-8159
D-8000 Munich 80		Home:		pwo@guug.de
Fed. Rep. of Germany		Home (Voice):	+49 (89) 613-6209
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,news.groups
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:23:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.180222.20077@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.130800.14354@news.acns.nwu.edu> learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk) writes:
>>>First, it does not affect "all of us."  
>>I am once again dismayed at the responses made by supposedly
>>intelligent individuals to affairs which do indeed affect all
>>of us. Perhaps some people simply don't se the connections.
>
>An article about voting for a particular presidential candidate affects all of
>us too.  Even if you're not a US citizen or resident, the US has enough
>world-wide influence that which president is elected is probably going to have
>some indirect on you.  Should such an article be posted to a thousand-odd
>newsgroups?
>
>Anyone can get heart disease.  Should I post articles about cholesterol in
>gnu.misc.discuss because it affects "all of us" and so can go to every
>newsgroup on the net?

And AMWAY salesmen, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mutlu, all feel that
everyone should hear what THEY have to say.  (Fortunately, so far, only
Mutlu has therefore decided to post everywhere - William, do you really
want to join Mutlu as net.pest?)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman)
Subject: Errors in extrapolation
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:30:50 GMT

People are extrapolating from a mistaken understanding of trade secret
law to incorrect conclusions about the possible risk of lawsuits like
that of AT&T vs UCB.  I urge people not to post messages asserting
risks based on extrapolation or speculation, because these are not
reliable where legal questions are concerned.  If you read messages
that do this, keep in mind that the authors are likely to be wrong
about some link in the chain of the argument.

If the UCB release does contain any AT&T trade secrets, then UCB might
be liable for damages for releasing these secrets.  However, this has
no effect on the rest of us who did not participate in UCB's release
of the secrets.  Those former secrets are now public knowledge, and
even those who have signed nondisclosure agreements to keep secrets
about Unix are now allowed to treat them as public knowledge.  We can
go on using Networking 2 with no liability due to trade secret law.

It is unlikely that Mach 3 actually released any AT&T trade secrets.
It is much less related to Unix than BSD is.  But even if it did
release some secrets, only CMU would be liable, not the rest of us.

The real legal risk of using Networking 2 is from the possibility of
copyright infringement.  We cannot avoid liability for this merely by
saying that UCB published it first and said it was ok.  Of course,
this risk applies if the program you distribute really does contain
something carried down from version 7 Unix.  Most parts of Networking
2 does not.  There are also legal arguments that AT&T lost its
copyright through its actions a decade ago (but we don't know whether
the court will accept them).

I think that some laymen assume that a kind of contagion is at work:
if you come in contact with something illegal, then anything you do is
illegal, and likewise for anyone who comes in contact with your work,
and so on.  This is not so.

Copyright applies only to specific copying from AT&T code into your
code.  Trade secret law applies to disclosing specific secrets, and
this depends on what you say.  It does not presume that you have
released a trade secret merely because you have had access to it.

Some of the confusion may be due to the AT&T complain itself.  It is
natural to assume that AT&T is behaving reasonably: that their demands
are lawful if their accusations are true.  This is not even nearly so;
in fact, the reason we know AT&T's conduct is outrageous, even though
we don't know whether parts of Networking 2 contain any AT&T code, is
precisely that they repeatedly say and do things which even the truth
of their accusations would not justify.
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2892 comp.org.eff.talk:5664 comp.unix.bsd:5073 comp.os.mach:1163 news.groups:17541
From: learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk)
Subject: Re: Exercising Caution When Making Attributions (was Re: ... Boycott)
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Orgainzation
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:05:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.182039.12552@gateway.novell.com> Terry Lambert writes:

>In article <1992Sep3.141452.6937@news.acns.nwu.edu> William J. Vajk writes:

>>Have you now, carelessly, atributed the entire boycott recommendation to
>>be my idea? 

>Bill is quite correct.  Due to his inability to correctly attribute quotes 
>within his followup posting, he appeared to be the individual under fire.

Come on, Terry. The article came up with three previous inclusions, and
two attributions as I received and reposted. You simply selected some
handy victim for your example. Could have been anyone associated
with the thread, eh? Still your error, and not excusable by this path.
Excusable by apology, yes.

>I am somewhat chagrined at the tone of his public posting here,
>given his rather less caustic email to myself, but it fits with what he
>has stated as an intent to "stir up the shit", as it were.

Terry, you attribute statements you THINK I made to me, concepts with
which I disagree completely, and you think I should be nice and polite
and kind and wimpy in saying "oh, gee whiz, I think you might have made
a mistake, would you please go back and check your attributions because I
don't think I ever in my whole entire life ever stated, thought, or conveyed
such an idea....indeed, I haven't even lusted......" ???

>	Since this is a followup of his demand for retraction, which appears
>to be a followup of my article, this will hopefully receive the same level
>of distribution, as I must assume he has not editted his references yet
>again, this time perhaps including the "Newsgroups:" line.

Someone played nasty games with you and now you're paranoid????

Takes a smallish mind to do that stuff.

On the other hand, I assume this statement to be an indication that
you are unable to read or modify (perhaps you don't understand how to
operate standard Usenet software???? Perhaps yop aren't using
standard Usenet software ????) articles in toto and thus it would 
also explain other misunderstandings by extension.

As far as the minor flaming you included, tis a fine flame and well
worth the smile especially when one realizes dear old Jay to have
scored 100% wrong again in his commentaries regarding these proceedings.

Duh...Hi Jay :-)

Bill Vajk
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: johnw@bnd2.bnd.oz.au (John Warburton)
Subject: NetFax anyone??
Organization: B&D Doors, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:15:25 GMT

Hello Gnu people.

I have compiled Netfax that is under the gnu directory at prep. no problemo

But, when I come to install it, there are no make calls for "install" and no 
documentation on what I shoudl do to get the system running.

My current state of play is running faxspool as a daemon, and trying to send a
fax. I get an error message that faxenq has a connection refused when trying to
connect to the server.

Anyone done this before me & able to help me out?

Thanks 
John

PS Sparc station 2 - sunos 4.1.1

-- 
John Warburton				Internet:    johnw@bnd2.bnd.oz.au
Systems Administrator			Phone:       +61 2 771 5566
B & D Australia				Fax:	     +61 2 771 6385
		  Living on ice-cream and chocolate kisses...
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2811 comp.org.eff.talk:5580 comp.unix.bsd:4902 comp.os.mach:1102
From: sean+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sean McLinden)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach
Subject: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
Date: 31 Aug 92 04:22:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.UecUwQO00iUz81B9Qv
	<1992Aug29.235059.23907@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


I suspect that the best way to approach this would be a general posting to
the entire netnews community informing them, in a succinct manner, what is
the situation, what are the issues and alternatives, and what is the
recommended course of action (switching long distance carriers).

The posting should be by someone who has no ties to the other carriers
(a posting from MCI.COM would not look so good). It should be as brief as
possible so as not to discourage people from reading it. It should be
posted to ALL newsgroups as it affects all of us.

And yes, a well organized boycott of AT&T would be very effective. Long
distance is AT&T's most profitable area and one in which their market share
is crucial. It would be particularly interesting if MCI and Sprint got on
the bandwagon, and offered a few hundred free minutes to former AT&T
customers who switched  and listed "Lawsuit" or "academic freedom" as their
reason.

As was mentioned before, this lawsuit is distasteful for many reasons. The
theme of the lawsuit, intellectual contamination, threatens the core of any
educational process (in writing a book on fishing will I ever be able to
prove that I wasn't influenced by a 10th grade reading of "Moby Dick"?) In
asking the courts to intervene, USL (the apple doesn't fall very far from the
tree) violates the principle that the marketplace (not the courts), should
decide what are commercially successful products. (But then when has AT&T 
played fairly when it comes to market forces?)

I have little doubt that USL will lose this suit (if it ever even gets to
trial). But the economic and educational impact of the suit, itself, (witness
CMU's reluctance to get in the fray with the MACH distribution), will be
felt widely and deeply. It is unfortunate that we have gotten to the point
where organizations such as USL can use the court system for such malevolent
purposes as interfering with the dissemination of what is now public knowledge
simply because they cannot, otherwise, compete in the marketplace.

Sean McLinden
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2880 comp.org.eff.talk:5645 comp.unix.bsd:5023 comp.os.mach:1144 news.groups:17498
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,news.groups
Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:06:45 GMT
	<1992Sep1.180222.20077@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
	<1992Sep2.171951.22044@gateway.novell.com>
Organization: The World


A very reasonable discussion by Terry Lambert.

The easy thing to do is take the readership summary and consider
posting to, say, 10 based on readership and coverage and perhaps 3-5
more based on high potential interest level, or some formula like
that, with the followup-to carefully pointed at a relevant group
(alt.suit.att-bsdi comes to mind.)

I doubt that would overburden the net or be of much bother worth
debating.

Thereby let people decide for themselves whether it affects them or
not and let's give up on these attempts at mass mind reading.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: GNU Hurd mailing list ?
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:53:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.205217.6484@sfu.ca> khattra@fraser.sfu.ca (Taj Khattra) writes:

>Is there one ? If there is, how does one get onto it ?

There was one, until a bunch of people started holding a flame-war on
it. Maybe there will be one again in the future...

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,news.groups
From: max@underg.UUCP (Max Cray)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach
Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 02:25:26 EDT
Organization: Underground Computing Foundation


                       SAVE MACH/BNR2!!!

Uh oh...subject drift. What was boycott ATT is becoming Netiquette 101.
We will have to put aside our differences if we are going to accomplish
anything. I think we are all agreed that ATT must be stopped.

Now, back to the task at hand. Are we agreed that boycotting ATT is the
best tactic? Other options may be a letter writing campaign, picketing
ATT offices, etc, or a combination of the above. Does anyone have any
experience at public protests?

Is there any 'official' source of information about this law suit? It will
be important to have our facts straight.

Is there a BSDI defense fund? What does BSDI have to say about it?

                                          -= Max =-
...!uunet!underg!max
...!cactus.org!underg!max
From: cogen@ll.mit.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: gdb and shared libraries doesn't work
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:53:24 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

.
.
.
------- Start -------->


I have gdb 4.6 And I am trying to debug C programs linked to shared libraries
which I have built myself. The OS is SunOS 4.4.1. gdb fails in many different
ways: 

1) I say gdb <progname>. Then type "break main" and gdb crashes with
segmentation violation. Same for any other function in my source files.

2) If instead of main I try to break in a library routine, gdb says it is not
defined. 

3) Another thing I do a lot it debug an existing process. I say gdb <progname>,
then attach to the process, which is currently in a pause(). Setting a
breakpoint in my function still generates seg violation. However, now I can set
a breakpoint in a library routine. Apparently, library routine names don't get
loaded until main executes. But unfortunately, even with the breakpoint set I
still can't step through these library routines. The breakpoint is never
detected by gdb.

All code -- program and library -- were compiled with -g option.

The release nodes for 4.6 said that gdb can debug shared libraries. So what is
going wrong?

(Apologies if this is the wrong newsgroup. Let me know if so; I will repost
it.) 

Thanks for any help.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss