HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:32:29 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Better DISTRIBUTE delivery time statistics
Comments: To: Node management discussion <NODMGT-L@UGA.BITNET>,
          EARN Network Operations Group <EARN-NOG@FRMOP11.BITNET>

There remained  a problem  with the  statistics I  posted last  time: the
figures for the "local gateway" case  were not very accurate, because the
nodes which  would have been  the most likely  local gateways if  the two
test  sites  had had  entries  in  DOMAIN  NAMES  were the  target  nodes
themselves. That  is, the  logical gateway  for .PL  is the  PLEARN node,
which  was   also  the  node   used  for   the  test.  Sending   mail  to
ERIC%PLEARN.EDU.PL@PSUVM is just the same  as sending it to ERIC@PLEARN -
BITNET all the  way. So we had  just picked a random  INTERBIT gateway on
the way to  the destination, which hopefully wouldn't have  been too busy
just at  the time we sent  the message. Unfortunately we  later found out
that the gateway  we had chosen HAD  been very busy, hence  the delays on
the "local gateway" case. A "normal" local gateway set up so that it only
processes mail  from BITNET to  local non-BITNET users  shouldn't process
more than a couple  10k pieces of mail a day - and  definitely not in the
100k.

We have made a new test  with more appropriate gateways: JHUVM for PSUVM,
and SEARN for PLEARN (the latter  being topologically the closest one can
get to  a gateway  for .PL). We  also collected figures  on a  24h period
during which there was no known major outage to either Internet or BITNET
systems, and as before we inserted the  test entries in the middle of the
list and next to each other  so they wouldn't get preferential treatment.
Here are the new results:

+----------+-----------------------+
| Delivery |      Extra delay      |
| method   | Penn State    Poland  |
+----------+------------+----------+
| BITNET   |   0 min 16 | 0 min 01 |
| Mixed    |   1 min 36 | 4 min 40 |
| Internet |  65 min 51 |67 min 15 |
+----------+------------+----------+

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:07:40 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Better DISTRIBUTE delivery time statistics
              25 Jan 1993 13:55:08 IST from Node Management <NODMGT-L@UGA>

On Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:55:08 IST Hank Nussbacher <HANK@VM.TAU.AC.IL>
said:

>>Here are the new results:
>>
>>+----------+-----------------------+
>>| Delivery |      Extra delay      |
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^

>I just find it hard to believe that Internet mail takes an hour
>vs. Bitnet mail which takes 16 seconds.

This is not the delivery time,  which is difficult to calculate since the
clocks on the various machines are off  by a couple minutes and since the
exact time at which LISTSERV@SUVM presented  the message to the mailer is
not known.  As I said in  the first series of  tests there is a  delay of
about 10-15  minutes between the  time the user  sent the message  to the
mailing list and the time it shows  up in the mailbox of the BITNET user,
and 5 minutes  more for Poland. The  figures show the EXTRA  DELAY of the
delivery method. The  extra delay for BITNET is close  to zero because in
all but  one or two  cases the BITNET copy  arrived first. And  of course
there is  no time zone  problem since the  reference time is  the instant
when the message was placed into the recipient's mailbox.

>Every time  I have  sent e-mail  via the  Internet and  I get  that nice
>acknowledgement from SMTP that the mail has been sent, it is usually 2-5
>minutes after I send it and not an hour later.

Please try again with 500 recipients, and  let us know when the 250th has
received his  copy; my guess is  it will take  a good hour. Then  try the
same with a DISTRIBUTE job.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:22:16 EST
From:         Nick Laflamme <NLAFLAMM@IRISHVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET
Comments: cc: future-l@bitnic.BITNET

On Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:07:32 -0500 <GATEH@CONNCOLL> said
(responding to Eric Thomas, responding to GATEH):

>> >I see a fairly high  level of self-motivated programming and development
>> >on the Internet, and I don't see that on BITNET.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>My sincere apologies, Eric, for not noting the clear exception of
>your work.  If only that level of motivation, skill, and attention
>to quality had gone into, oh, say, UREP... Jim Jones and I have
>mused in personal communication what effect that might have had on
>the net as a whole.

But, it's more than just Eric, and not just for VM.  I'm running lots of
wonderful services, some via NJE, some via TCP/IP, using tools I picked
up from BITNET.  Even things, like VMGopher, I got via BITNET, although
that one is also available via FTP.  Those of us running VM can point to
Eric, John Wagner, Richard Schafer, Yossie Silverman, and dozens of
others for tools we've gotten which make life easier.

Similarly, my MVS colleagues down the hall are running software from
UCLA, Delaware, and other MVS BITNET sites which is made available at
low cost or free to make life on BITNET easier.

I'll grant you, your Unix colleagues lurk more in the Internet than in
BITNET, but that's a machine-specific culture issue, not a network
issue.

I feel bad for those whose computer systems aren't as well supported by
volunteer efforts as VM is in BITNET, but it's not a BITNET issue, it's
Unix issue and maybe a VMS issue and maybe....

>Cheers     - Gregg
Nick Laflamme

>Gregg TeHennepe | Comp & Info Services | Internet: gateh@mvax.cc.conncoll.edu
>Post/Hostmaster | Connecticut College  | BITNET/CREN: gateh@conncoll

* NLAFLAMM@IRISHVMA.BITNET
* Dominique.P.Laflamme.1@nd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:21:42 EST
From:         Andy Hooper <HOOPER@QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA>
Subject:      Re: DOMAIN NAMES

On Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:14:18 EST Duane D. Weaver said:
>For somtime now, I have modifying DOMAIN NAMES to route all domains
>with either interconnect.YES or interconnect.MX to SMTP on OHSTVMA.

Strictly speaking, you should not reroute :interconnect.MX if your SMTP
does not suport MX. My memory is hazy, but I think MX was first supported
in IBM TCP/IP 1.2.3, not in 1.2.2.

Andy Hooper
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.4 2/14/89)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:08:48 -0500
From:         GATEH@CONNCOLL.BITNET
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET

> > ...                                         Unfortunately for
> >BITNET/CREN, the RCSC protocol doesn't really lend itself to the
> >desktop.
>
>  This is completely inaccurate.  Any VAX/VMS system will run JNET rather
>  nicely as far as I know.

By "desktop" I was referring to neither unix nor VMS, but to
microcomputers, my apologies for ambiguity. I was attempting to
point out that while TCP/IP runs on micros fairly well, and as such
brings Internet services directly to my desktop, RSCS does not.

>  The fact that UN*X implementation of Bitnet
>  software generally perform poorly has nothing to do with the protocols.
>  A number of factors have contributed to the lack of decent UN*X based
>  Bitnet packages.  The fact that UREP was (possible still is?) delivered
>  with all the comments stripped from the source code is just one example.
>  The fact that many UN*X people consider Bitnet worthless, and hence do
>  not see spending time developing/enhancing the software to support it
>  limits the field of expertise available to fuel such development.

Under the circumstances, the feelings of unix people with regard to
UREP and BITNET are somewhat understandable, however I (I'm a unix
person who struggled brutally with UREP) hardly feel that BITNET is
worthless. It has and still does offer important services at a very
low cost, relatively speaking.  We as a site would originally not
have had network access at all if it weren't for BITNET.

However if you ask, given the architecture of the TCP/IP and RSCS
protocols, which is the better one to spend time developing, it
would seem the current state of the nets speaks for itself.  Every
school we've visited in the past eight months as part of our own
network planning (these included Trinity, Wesleyan, Yale, and Brown)
already offer or are working primarily on TCP/IP-based services like
Gopher, NetNews, and POPmail. These are well-written pieces of code
that run fairly easily on a varity of platforms large and small.
Not being a networking programmer, I have no intimate knowledge of
either protocol, however observation would lead me to think that the
consensus of thousands of programmers and professionals around the
nets can't be too far off the mark. I see a fairly high level of
self-motivated programming and development on the Internet, and I
don't see that on BITNET.  Being someone who relies a fair amount
upon others for these resources, I know who I'm following at the
moment.

Thanks for the comments, more are certainly invited... Cheers - Gregg

Gregg TeHennepe | Comp & Info Services | Internet: gateh@mvax.cc.conncoll.edu
Post/Hostmaster | Connecticut College  | BITNET/CREN: gateh@conncoll
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:48:14 IST
From:         Hank Nussbacher <HANK@VM.TAU.AC.IL>
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET

>Users  aren't supposed  to deal  with routing  tables, link  definitions,
>BITEARN  NODES  updates,  and  the  like. That's  what  you  have  system
>administrators for. You as a  system administrators will not miss BITEARN
>NODES updates a bit when you migrate to TCP/IP, but I can tell you that I
>am not one  bit sorry I haven't  got to deal with  cisco routing problems
>and  BGP/IGRP interfacing.  Really, what  is your  point? All  networking
>systems come  with boring tasks  and network management problems.  If you
>want my opinion (and I've been  involved in both), NJE technology creates
>A LOT less problems than IP.

Eric,

Router vendors realize this and are now coming out with a new line
or routers which they term "end node routers".  This equipment is
plug and play.  The idea behind it is that an end network with
a few hosts and limited staff doesn't want to know how to configure
a router or know about the intricacies of IGRP or EGP or routing
metrics.  Especially since they have only one serial line to their
local service provider.  So this new type of router just sends
*everything* over the serial line and the router at the other end
has the smarts to know what to do with the packets.  Sort of like
the generic route of '*' one can code in RSCS for an end node so that
they do not have to ever update their routing tables.

Expect the "difficulty" gap to narrow in the near future.

>  Eric

Hank
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
From: Roger Watt <rwwatt@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Re: _possible_ death of BITNET
Organization: Computing Services, University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:43:52 GMT


> The NJE network provides two facilities that the Internet traditionally
> has not: [...]
> Unsolicited file transfer is more difficult, but not impossible, and I'd
> be surprised to find that nobody was working on it.  (I'll probably tackle
> it eventually if nobody else does.)

I've never been a devotee of communication via NMR, but I think the
unsolicitied file transfer is already a "done deal". MIME now gives me the
ability to include an arbitrary file as an "attachment" in the body of an
RFC822 mail object and send it to you in an RFC821 wrapper, and (if your
mail-reading tool supports MIME too) gives you the ability to save the
received "attachment" into a file of your choice. If that isn't
"unsolicited file transfer", it is pretty darned close.
From: OPRNAD@SAUPM00.BITNET (Iyad A.M. Al-Bukhari)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Subject: USENET and TELNET
Date: 23 Jan 93 14:46:15 GMT
Organization: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, S.A.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <OPRNAD@SAUPM00.BITNET>

Dear Sirs, I have been asked many times about how to access USENET and
TELNET. Has anybody information about these and how to access ?
If possible, can anybody direct me to someone in-charge of these ?
Thanx alot in advance......

+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
|Best Regards of                        | E-Mail: OPRNAD@SAUPM00.BITNET|
|Node Administrator of GulfNet at KFUPM |         OPRIAB@SAUPM00.BITNET|
|P.O.Box 773 Dhahran 31261              | Tel.# : (966-3) 860-3917 Off.|
|K.F.U.P.M. , Saudi Arabia              |         (966-3) 860-8828 Res.|
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:17:55 CST
From:         David E Boyes <dboyes@IS.RICE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET (humorous retort)
Comments: To: NODMGT-L@uga.cc.uga.edu
              93 12:50 am

>  A friend of mine almost bought a 4341 (complete with all sorts of
>  peripheral devices) for $400, and that was 2 months ago.  I bet you
>  can find those things for free these days, as long as you're willing
>  to pay the shipping costs. :)

Yes, but would you want to share an office with it?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: NODMGT-L@BITNIC.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"NODMGT-L@BITNIC.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:35:44 -0600
From:         "Donald L. Nash" <DON@THENIC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET

> I don't think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you can use MIME
> to send things like CMS SAS datasets, or MVS PDS's at this point.  Can
> MIME accomodate items with a file-structures that need to be preserved?
> If so, then it is close, even if you have to extract it from mail...
>
> PS - And I don't think it's just an IBM issue.  VMS files can have
> very complex structures as well.

MIME can handle complex file structures just fine.  PMDF uses MIME to send
VMS files and preserve their structure.

However, I'll agree that MIME isn't a yet perfect solution for sender-
initiated file transfer for several reasons.  The problem with sending large
files has already been brought up.  Also, there is no standard for sending
complex file structures via MIME.  Innosoft created a MIME content type
called APPLICATION/VMS-RMS to send VMS files around and then embedded a VMS
FDL file in the mail header so they can reconstruct the file structure on
arrival.  This sort of thing would have to be done for each O/S and
standardized so that different implementations of MIME would interoperate.

Actually, this same problem exists with NJE, but until now it has been
overlooked in this thread.  Joiner had to define their own VMSDUMP format to
allow arbitrary VMS files to be sent around via NJE.  VMSDUMP was never
formally standardized, but since Joiner (now Wingra), has a near-monopoly
hold on the NJE for VMS market, it doesn't matter.  We'll see what happens
with Innosofts APPLICATION/VMS-RMS content type.

                                ++Don Nash

Internet:  D.Nash@utexas.edu    The University of Texas System
BITNET:    DON@THENIC           Office of Telecommunication Services
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:14:41 EST
From:         Jim Jones <JIMJ@JHUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: DOMAIN NAMES

On Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:14:18 EST Duane D. Weaver said:
>For somtime now, I have modifying DOMAIN NAMES to route all domains
>with either interconnect.YES or interconnect.MX to SMTP on OHSTVMA.

 (text deleted...)

>Should I not be routing any domain with interconnect.MX to my SMTP
>machine?

 Unless your SMTP isn't working properly, I think it should work fine.
 Whether or not it's a good idea brings up a good question.  I think
 of entries in DOMAIN NAMES as "preferred" routes for Bitnet mail.  If
 you agree with that assesment, then you won't re-route any DOMAIN NAMES
 entries except those that list INTERBIT as the host gateway.  I'm sure
 there are people that think any time there is a choice of Internet or
 Bitnet mail, Internet should always be chosen.  I'm just not sure what
 the consensus is, so your question could prove quite useful.

>Thanks,
>Duane

 -jj

 PS - Remember, changing your copy of DOMAIN NAMES will change the way
 LISTSERV routes mail as well, unless you don't show the altered copy
 to LISTSERV.  Also, with LMAIL, you can code a LSM$DNT exit routine to
 change the DOMAIN TABLE and DOMAINH TABLE files so that way you don't
 have to change DOMAIN NAMES at all.  The rules for how to do so are in
 the LMAIL installation documentation.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:50:32 EST
From:         Jim Jones <JIMJ@JHUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET (humorous retort)

On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:15:46 CST David E Boyes said:
 (text deleted...)
> ...                                                  I've never
>seen an inexpensive machine that could run RSCS.

 A friend of mine almost bought a 4341 (complete with all sorts of
 peripheral devices) for $400, and that was 2 months ago.  I bet you
 can find those things for free these days, as long as you're willing
 to pay the shipping costs. :)

 Sorry, I couldn't resist...

 -jj
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:16:00 EST
From:         Jim Jones <JIMJ@JHUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET
              21 Jan 1993 17:43:52 GMT from <rwwatt@WATSERV1.UWATERLOO.CA>

On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:43:52 GMT Roger Watt said:
>I've never been a devotee of communication via NMR, but I think the
>unsolicitied file transfer is already a "done deal". MIME now gives me the
>ability to include an arbitrary file as an "attachment" in the body of an
>RFC822 mail object and send it to you in an RFC821 wrapper, and (if your
>mail-reading tool supports MIME too) gives you the ability to save the
>received "attachment" into a file of your choice. If that isn't
>"unsolicited file transfer", it is pretty darned close.

 I don't think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you can use MIME
 to send things like CMS SAS datasets, or MVS PDS's at this point.  Can
 MIME accomodate items with a file-structures that need to be preserved?
 If so, then it is close, even if you have to extract it from mail...

 -jj

 PS - And I don't think it's just an IBM issue.  VMS files can have
 very complex structures as well.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:58:31 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET
              21 Jan 1993 09:51:49 -0500 from Node Management <NODMGT-L@UGA>

On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:51:49 -0500 imhw400@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU said:

>Okay,  what are  the advantages  of the  BITNET alternative,  aside from
>unsolicited file transfer?

Getting my NOVELL mail in about 10 minutes rather than 3 hours? Or is the
subject of LISTSERV getting taboo on this  list as well? I had thought it
was banned only from Internet conferences.

  Eric
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
From: Roger Watt <rwwatt@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Re: _possible_ death of BITNET
Organization: Computing Services, University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:57:06 GMT

>>Okay, what are the advantages of the BITNET alternative, aside from
>>unsolicited file transfer?
>Getting my NOVELL mail in about 10 minutes rather than 3 hours? 
>[...] LISTSERV 
 
Eric is right. LISTSERV is about the last remaining technical advantage
for which there is no counterpart in the TCP/IP world. The problem is
not that it is a taboo subject, but that LISTSERV is not a "feature",
it is a "mechanism", and therefore is invisible to people who don't
know how things work under the covers.
 
In the long run, however, I suspect that LISTSERV will come to be the
last well-polished apple in an orchard in which nobody is planting apple 
trees anymore.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:15:01 EST
From:         Jim Jones <JIMJ@JHUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: :internet tag errors
              25 Jan 1993 14:16:40 EST from <UPDATE@NAC.NETNORTH.CA>

On Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:16:40 EST Herb said:
>Hi, I have written UVIC re an 'error' message from VERNODES re the
> :internet tag (see below) and have received the following.
> Comments, suggestions, please.
>Herb

 (text deleted...)

>>>>> Both UVVMY and UVVM claim ':internet' host UVVM.UVIC.CA.
>
>No user commands (or LISTSERV commands should ever come from UVVMY. It is
>strictly a dummy node to allow us to run 2 different RSCSs on the same
>physical machine.  ...

 Unless I've misunderstood all this, why not just code an entry like,

 :node.UVVM :internet.UVVM.UVIC.CA UVVMY.BITNET

 and remove the :internet tag from the UVVMY entry?  That seems to solve
 the problem to me.

 -jj
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:48:52 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET
              21 Jan 1993 17:15:46 CST from Node Management <NODMGT-L@UGA>

On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:15:46 CST David E Boyes <dboyes@IS.RICE.EDU> said:

>The cheapest thing  I've seen NJE implemented on was  HUJI-NJE on a used
>Sun3, and  while the HUJI code  is free, the  Sun cost more used  than a
>very nice  brand-new 486  PC with appropriate  modem and  software. I've
>never seen an inexpensive machine that could run RSCS.

That's because there isn't any. You haven't read what I said. Having RSCS
on the 8086 is definitely out, but  that does NOT mean that you can't use
BITNET services from a PC. There are a lot of PC users who use TRICKLE to
order PC software, and they don't run  NJE on their PC. And this in spite
of the fact that TRICKLE gets  its software from anonymous FTP sites! Why
do you think users  go to the "pain" of ordering PC  software via NJE and
the  downloading it  when they  have state-of-the-art  Internet protocols
right on their desktop and could FTP straight from the source?

>I can't  imagine anyone  asking an end  user to deal  with that  kind of
>nonsense.

Users  aren't supposed  to deal  with routing  tables, link  definitions,
BITEARN  NODES  updates,  and  the  like. That's  what  you  have  system
administrators for. You as a  system administrators will not miss BITEARN
NODES updates a bit when you migrate to TCP/IP, but I can tell you that I
am not one  bit sorry I haven't  got to deal with  cisco routing problems
and  BGP/IGRP interfacing.  Really, what  is your  point? All  networking
systems come  with boring tasks  and network management problems.  If you
want my opinion (and I've been  involved in both), NJE technology creates
A LOT less problems than IP.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:40:57 EST
From:         Harold Pritchett <HAROLD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: _possible_ death of BITNET (humorous retort)

On Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:17:55 CST David E Boyes said:
>>  A friend of mine almost bought a 4341 (complete with all sorts of
>>  peripheral devices) for $400, and that was 2 months ago.  I bet you
>>  can find those things for free these days, as long as you're willing
>>  to pay the shipping costs. :)
>
>Yes, but would you want to share an office with it?

Or pay to feed it and keep it cool?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU