HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Subject: Re: Running X and Xremote on a PC clone, do you do it?  Dell comments
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:12:28 GMT
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI

In article <1992Oct2.041154.8144@nntpserver.chevron.com> hcrms@crinoid.chvpkh.chevron.com writes:
>250 MB QIC tape or DAT tape. How many of us can afford those
>kind of tape drives for our PCs? (Especially after spending $999.99
>on the OS :-}

So what kind of tape drive *do* you have?

-- 
Marc Unangst, N8VRH         | "There are two ways to solve this problem:
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us   | the hard way, and the easy way.  Let's start
                            | with the hard way."
                            |   - W. Scheider, from a Physics lecture
From: sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:56:01 GMT
	<Bv3zI7.L50@acsu.buffalo.edu> <1992Sep27.055538.1035@ksmith.uucp>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University

}} In article <1992Sep27.055538.1035@ksmith.uucp> keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith) writes:
}} 
}} Give them a little time.  They've
}} been working on a 386 Unix for about a year with a handful of people and
}} produced a pretty darn stable product.

There's the rub.  If you consider Linus, Drew, H.J., and a couple of
others who've slipped my mind to be working on linux (no offense
intended), then they've accomplished more in less time, with less
staff, than MWC (linux has networking, virtual memory, X, MGR, ...).

And with Owen and Ted helping to manage the software at FTP sites, the
burden of collecting it is way overrated.  There's even a service that
will ship you pre-formatted, bootable floppies with linux, if you
don't have ftp access.

Nope, the place where Coherent wins is NOT on the technical side.  It
is with the documentation, and the "it's a real company, so they'll
give me better support" security blanket that is necessary to get bean
counters to use a product.  No disputing it, Coherent has linux beat
on those counts, and thus Coherent is a better choice for the user who
isn't interested in compiling a kernel.

Both have their niche.

}} Keith Smith          uunet!ksmith!keith            5719 Archer Rd.

sjc@cs.purdue.edu               Steve Chapin           Today's Grammar Lesson:
       "If you loose your arrow, you're likely to lose it in the weeds,"
                       was often heard in days of yore.

               Help stamp out variable length protocol headers!
From: sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: X fascination (was Re: Attempted summary (Was Re: UNIX on a PC clone))
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:52:13 GMT
	<1992Sep24.195925.23312@csx.cciw.ca>
	<1992Sep25.091538.29277@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
	<19744@ector.cs.purdue.edu>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University

}} In article <19744@ector.cs.purdue.edu> sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin) writes:
}} 
}} X is not close to state-of-the-art.  Display Postscript (NeWS), that's
}} SOTA.  Something with non-rectangular windows, etc.

As was pointed out to me in mail, X does non-rectangular windows with
the shape extensions.  I was in error.

sjc@cs.purdue.edu               Steve Chapin           Today's Grammar Lesson:
       "If you loose your arrow, you're likely to lose it in the weeds,"
                       was often heard in days of yore.

               Help stamp out variable length protocol headers!
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:17:25 GMT

In article <BvMIvG.9qL@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>>What is rather hilarious, is that I could send you a binary of gnu make
>>that was compiled under Coherent 4.0, and it would run on Dell SVR4 without
>>a complaint.
>
>How about the other way around (you running my binaries (ELF) under
>Coherent?)

No, but that's true of any R3 machine, except for certain configurations
of AT&T SVR3.2 that could be bought with a K&R compiler that produced
COFF binaries OR a ANSI compiler that produced ELF binaries. ( talk about
standards )

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: Ownership of files prevent Viruses
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
	<BURLEY.92Sep25185919@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 10:37:35 GMT

In article <BURLEY.92Sep25185919@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> burley@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes:
>  As a teenager I cracked a few "mainframe-class" systems that were in
>  environments where security was a concern.  Ultimately, it's still pretty
>  easy, not requiring any more genius than the average con-man possesses,
>  plus some adequate technical skills in the field of computer software.
>  Not nearly as much a no-brainer as writing viruses and worms for PCs,
>  and somewhat more difficult than breaking into workstations, I suppose,
>  but nevertheless not very difficult in many cases.

I think you hit on it.  The main thing that has been protecting unix
systems, is that relatively few teenagers have access to unix machines
on a very frequent basis.  Lets face it, unix security is not so hot.
Anyone with a few days work could unleash a virus across internet.
The point is who has the time and the desire?  So, now that unix is
rappidly moving into the home environment, we better be prepared for
a new assualt of viruses from previously fairly safe sources.

                                  Bill
From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: EISA and 386BSD
Keywords: UNIX, PC compatibles, 32 bit
Date: 2 Oct 92 05:35:15 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services

In article <38857@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> john@sdacs.ucsd.edu (John Boyd) writes:
>Does anyone know whether the current releases of 386BSD or 386i Unix will
>even work on an EISA machine?  I haven't actually heard about anyone
>who has one up and running.  I have heard from sources that some of
>the releases will not run on an EISA machine.  Anyone know otherwise?

Yes, it has been done.  You should really go ask on comp.unix.bsd -- that's
where 386bsd discussion is mostly taking place.  EISA is not supported,
but some people have been able to make the machines run it.

Paul Southworth                    |     ftp redspread.css.itd.umich.edu
Consulting and Support Services    |        Anonymous Political Archives
Information Technology Division    |                     100% 386BSD 0.1
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor  |  Coming soon: mirror of ftp.eff.org

  <Representing myself.  Everything I say is for educational use only.>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
From: macbeth@cats.ucsc.edu (Ryan Mercer Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: howabout a new group??
Date: 2 Oct 1992 18:38:54 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu



lets start comp.unix.flamewar.
to the victor go the spoils.

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
                   macbeth@cats.ucsc.edu |
   /\  /\                                |  Realism, n : Nature as seen through
  //\\//\\                               |               the eyes of a toad.
 //  \/  \\    A   C   B   E   T   H     |
//        \\  ----------=====}=====O     |  --- Open locks
"By the pricking of my thumbs,           |  --- Whoe'r knocks.
 Something wicked this way comes!"       | Send my opinions to /dev/null.
From: gt7080a@prism.gatech.EDU (Nathan Laredo)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: X fascination (was Re: Attempted summary (Was Re: UNIX on a PC clone))
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:48:38 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep28.142209.13332@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> pnevmati@milhouse.cs.wisc.edu (Dionisios N. Pnevmatikatos) writes:
>sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin) writes:
>
>>}} In article <pdhatchm.717595194@syzygy> pdhatchm@socs.uts.edu.au (Paul Hatchman) writes:
>>}} 
>>}} I run X on a 486-50. The server rarely uses up more than 10% of CPU time.
>>}} (Usually about 5%). The server is using less than 2MB at the moment and has 
>>}} been running most of the day.
>
>>From top (under SunOS):
>>  183 sjc        1    0  7876K 2108K sleep  82:13  0.39%  0.39% Xsun

>Here is my server on a Black and White DECstation 3100. Agreed, if you
>  213 root       1    0  3668K  472K sleep  22:19  0.39%  0.39% Xdec
>
>BTW, what is the ratio of code space for 486 vs RISC programs? This could 
>account for quite a bit of the difference.

Well my figures under linux (I'm using a 486) are a bit different than
sjc above suggests (from top):

82% idle, 53% free core - sorted by CPU use          load avg: 0.03, 0.03, 0.00
  PID  UID USER     %CPU %MEM PRI  NI  SIZE SWAP SHARE STAT   TIME COMMAND
  258    0 root     11.7 22.1  15  -1  2073   72    64 R <   37:26 X

I started that process at 9:36PM on September 28th, it's now (from date on
my linux box):
Mon Sep 28 10:31:53 EDT 1992

notice the larger percent cpu than suggested.... granted this is 
Xfree86-1.0Ya which takes better advantage of your system resources to make
it faster (it hogs them), but scrolling in an xterm (without jump scroll)
seems much faster on my 486 than on either the Sparc IPX, Sparc 2, or the
rs6000s that I've used.   As far as code size, I see my 486 executables
(specifically -m486 under gcc) as about the exact same size as the same
code under SunOS or under Ultrix (on a R3000), although the code on the
Ultrix system is a bit larger than the code under SunOS... all using the
same compiler with optimization for that particular platform... used text
size only.. nothing else to compare.

-- Nathan Laredo

-- 
|Nathan I. Laredo (this spot $9)  gt7080a@prism.gatech.edu|tb    |
|Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia,  30332|njnl! |
|An ever clever quote:  "A grouch escapes so  many  little|npx,  |
|annoyances that it almost pays to be one." -- Kin Bubbard|csssg!|
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 07:09:51 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <BvHszE.2qF@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>and that 5 of them are actually programmers.  And that they support both
>
>Sounds like a small outfit to me -- How many programmers did (does
>$CO have on staff?  At time time, I could have sworn it was well over
>a hundred)

Yes.  MWC has done an amazing job, considering their resources.

>>286 and 386 versions of Coherent.  And that Coherent 4.0 runs binaries
>>from ESIX, ISC, and SCO SVR3 boxes, and produces binaries for those same
>>boxes.  And they have people working on TCP/IP, virtual memory, and the
>>rest of the goodies.
>
>Yes, but until it is officially supported by Word Perfect, Microsoft
>Word, Foxbase, dBase, Lotus -- Coherent still won't attract the commercial
>market

They are working on that also.

>>Coherent is a better choice for someone who wants an OS with one foot in
>>the door of the commercial world.
>
>And not the choice for those who want access to the commerical world :)

Certainly not at this point.  I do all my serious work on R3 and R4.

What is rather hilarious, is that I could send you a binary of gnu make
that was compiled under Coherent 4.0, and it would run on Dell SVR4 without
a complaint.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
From: alex@am.sublink.org (Alex Martelli)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: vi on a PC
Date: 27 Sep 92 09:10:04 GMT
Organization: Premiata Famiglia Martelli & Figli

fishkin@parc.xerox.com (Ken Fishkin) writes:

:>Apologies if this is the wrong group for this.

Probably -- the question is regularly discussed in comp.editors.

:>Anybody know where I can get "vi" for a PC running DOS?

I swear for (some $$) MKS vi, others for (free) elvis 1.6, etc.  Do
come over to comp.editors and you'll hear all opinions...
-- 
Alex Martelli - alex@am.sublink.org - +39 (51) 250434 - Bologna, Italia
From: edmonds@cs.ubc.ca (Brian Edmonds)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Reliability of Linux (was UNIX on a PC clone)
Date: 1 Oct 1992 09:28:25 -0700
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cobra.cs.ubc.ca

In article <9210010028.47@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>I like Linux, and if I had a spare PC that I wasn't using, I would have it
>up and running here.  I've fooled with it on other systems, like it, but
>realize that it is not at the state where it can be relied upon to be up
>24 hours a day.
Not quite true.  I've been running Linux since May, specificly 0.96c
for the last few months.  It is extremely stable, and has not crashed
once on me.  My current output from uptime reads:
  9:25am  up 25 days, 14:14,  1 user,  load average: 0.17, 0.06, 0.02

Admittedly it is a one user system, but over this time I have started
and stopped X a number of times, ditto for iscreen3.0, ditto for
MudOS0.9 (all of which are large apps), and done numerous compiles
with gcc2.2.2.  Oh, and uucico and backups daily via cron.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Edmonds (MSc CompSci)                          edmonds@cs.ubc.ca
From: burley@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: Ownership of files prevent Viruses
Date: 27 Sep 92 23:31:40 GMT
	<BCR.92Sep26113735@hpl3sn02.cern.ch>
	<1992Sep27.112655.3832@darwin.ntu.edu.au>
Organization: Free Software Foundation 545 Tech Square Cambridge, MA 02139
In-reply-to: nunn@nutmeg.ntu.edu.au's message of 27 Sep 92 02:26:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.112655.3832@darwin.ntu.edu.au> nunn@nutmeg.ntu.edu.au (JsNO  BAR---NUNN) writes:

   Reply to Craig Burley:

      I totally agree with you. But lets be reasonable here. You are talking about
   viruses that do exhaustive searches on users passwords, or bend over backwards to
   get passwords. For an experenced user on PC-386, those sorts of activities don't
   go unnoticed.

Thanks for agreeing, but that's not what I was talking about.  I've never
used exhaustive searches to get passwords (to do my break-ins).  And I've
been unable to use my "other" means to get passwords since I turned, oh,
around 12 years old.  (Prior to that, all I had to do was wait for a
sysop type to come along, make some comment like "what's that funny-looking
typewriter for?", and observe the keyboard while, in his/her zeal to demo
the system, he/she logs into a privileged account. :-)

No, my more recent methods (not very, since I stopped cracking systems over
14 years ago -- when I turned "pro" as a programmer) don't require much
effort (like searching on user passwords -- systems I grew up on didn't
have the equivalent of /etc/passwd to decrypt, nor was repeated submission
of password feasible due to built-in delayed response) and would still
be very effective today.

Think about it this way: given file protection added to MS-DOS, what
percentage of DOS applications would have to have, as their installation
instructions, something equivalent to "login as root, then ..."?  Given
that the percentage is higher than, say, 5%, it is then very easy to
convince users they have to login as root to install _your_ app.

The problem to solve here is to have a system set up so that even unusual
(demanding) apps require little or no special capabilities beyond what the
user has, and when they do, are permitted only those capabilities (say,
during install) that the user explicitly provides given the documentation.
It's more complicated than this, of course, and there are other problems
to deal with, but this is a big part of it.
--

James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF)
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: Many questions..
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:03:32 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <!bjz7lb@rpi.edu> gallatin@altair.cs.rpi.edu (Andrew Gallatin) writes:
>
>I'm wondering what sort of configuration (processor, ram & disk
>space)for a pc would be recommended to run the following:
>
>	linux
>	emacs
>	gcc (& is g++ available?)

Yes, g++ is available: it's in fact part of the gcc-2.x distribution.

>	X windows (with include files & libs, not just server..)
>	TeX & xdvi
>	
>Would something like a 486-DX w/4M ram  & 100M hd provide enough power
>and storage space?

You absolutely want at least 8MB of ram - and anything beyond that is
nice.  You /can/ run X with 4MB (or even 2MB), but it's not actually
very useable. 

As to disk size: 100 MB will get you a useable system (I actually have
only 80MB, but I don't use GNU emacs etc), but getting 150 or 200MB will
make your life easier.  And depending on what you do, you can certainly
use more disk-space - fonts etc take up a lot of disk. 

>Also, does X on pc's support monochrome displays?  Are there any SVGA
>monochrome cards/monitors out there?

Xfree86 does support monochrome VGA, but at least current versions seem
to be bounded by a 64kB limit (512kpixels: about 800x600).  Don't know
about the hardware. 

			Linus
From: ledesma@mexico.Corp.Sun.COM (Ron Ledesma (CSE Engineering Support))
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: Solaris
Date: 1 Oct 1992 22:04:05 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: ledesma@mexico.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: mexico.corp.sun.com


In article 717866052@dagobah.sce.carleton.ca, thia@sce.carleton.ca (Yong Thia) writes:
>Hi! Could someone please explain what Solaris is and where I can get
>information on it. I understand is a SUN product. Is it UNIX on a PC
>and what is this version different from SuUN UNIX on the workstartion.
>
>ANy pointers will be greatly appreciated.
>
>
>

Solaris is the trademark name for the UNIX releases from SunSoft. A version
of Solaris 2.0 is planned for Intel X86 hardware. For information on Solaris
products and availability call (800) 227-9227).


*****************************************************************
*								*
*	Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily	*
*	those of my employer.					*
*								*
*	Ron Ledesma						*
*	Sun Microsystems WWCS					*
*	Email Internet		ron.ledesma@Corp.Sun.Com	*
*	Phone			(415) 336-3432			*
*								*
*****************************************************************	

Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:02:03 GMT

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>What is rather hilarious, is that I could send you a binary of gnu make
>that was compiled under Coherent 4.0, and it would run on Dell SVR4 without
>a complaint.

How about the other way around (you running my binaries (ELF) under
Coherent?)

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
From: shwake@nearside.UUCP (Raymond Shwake)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: Unix "Lite" is not so light
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:57:40 GMT
Organization: A/C International

debra@wsinis07.info.win.tue.nl (Paul De Bra) writes:

>Several people have mentioned in this newsgroup that they have some
>old AT-bus memory laying around they would like to use as a ramdisk.
>Although this memory is much too slow to use as main memory it is still
>a lot faster than a disk, so it would be useful for a /tmp filesystem.

This option is not viable on many ISA platforms (NEC Powermate, for example).
My experience with SCO Xenix/386 and ISC UNIX results in *slower* performance
when intermixing my 4 MB of fast 32-bit RAM with 2 MB of Intel Above Board
RAM on the bus. DOS doesn't seem to suffer to the same extent, but since I
get best results running that extension board as (ugh!) expanded memory for
virtual disk and disk cache, that's how I tend to use it.
-- 

uunet!media!ka3ovk!nearside!shwake			shwake@rsxtech
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: Many questions..
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:20:08 GMT

mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:

>No.  You want at least 8MB for X.  If you can afford it, get 16MB.
>100MB will probably not be enough disk space, either; get 150MB
>minimum, 200MB if you can afford it.  486DX/33 is probably a good
>place to start, although you might also get a good deal on a 486DX2/50
>or 486DX/50.  If you don't have a large hunk of cash around, you might

Or, a 386/40 unless you plan to do a lot of math work --  


-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: X fascination
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 07:53:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.020614.23101@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rahardj@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Budi Rahardjo) writes:

>>>-It has a lot of software support.
>
>Okay, here is a partial list of FREE Xwindows programs 
>or programs that support Xwindows :
>
>- xarchie (archie client)
>- xgraph (a graph program)
>- xplayer (to play sound)
>- ftptool and xftp (ftp program)

Yeah, and *thank* *God* for these programs, huh?  Boy, I don't know
how my life would have been had I not had xarchie handy ...

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser)
Subject: Re: Which commercial UNIX to choose for my PC ?
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:25:39 GMT

cl45@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Ching-Tse Liu) writes:
>        I have a SUN 4 (sparc) at work. I would like to set
>up an Intel 486 running Unix at home. Which vendor's Unix
>should I choose from so the maximum compatibility is insured
>between the Sun and the home Unix in terms of development
>effors (i.e. compiling the same source code on both platforms
>and then expecting them to work the same way.)

You probably want to wait for SOLARIS to release v2.x of their product
for the INTEL platform.  Then you'll have essentially the same OS on
both your 486 and the Sparc.


-- 
bill@unixland.natick.ma.us                      ESIX Mailing List Moderator
Public Access UNIX/USENET/E-MAIL!  UUCP Accounts Available!  (508) 655-3848
5 lines  -  Located in Natick, MA   USA    Supporting V.32/PEP/V.42bis, etc.
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: Reliability of Linux (was UNIX on a PC clone)
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:17:17 GMT
	<9210020128.36@rmkhome.UUCP>
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University


>>>>> "Rick" == Rick Kelly (rmk@rmkhome.UUCP)

Rick> Not bad, but I notice that you have stayed at 0.96c, while the mainstream
Rick> is up to 0.98.

Most people with a Sun run some sort of stable release version of
SunOS, not the latest wizzbang internal development version.

Remember, free software is being developed in public. This means that
the experimental versions are often made public, and that bug reports
and failings are announces to the world at large.

Do not make the mistake of believing the less know bugs means less
bugs.

/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
CS Dept., Aalborg Univ., DENMARK. | these things.  -- Calvin