HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:57:19 EST
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Western Michigan University


	Well, I just got another Trap 008 error and this system
is simply OS/2 service pack installed over the GA.  Format Drives,
install OS/2 GA, install service pack.
	I get about 2 hangs a day and 1 trap crash a day.  If anyone
knows what could cause a Trap 008 maybe that would sove the problem.
	TE/2 usually is running when these crashes happen I might
add.  But It crashes far too much for my tastes.

					-Brad



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 12:38:20 -0800
From: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Comment-To: Greg_Nash@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

 GN> How about Unix? I have a friend that wrote a 2-line 
 GN> program (of course could
 GN> have compressed it to 1 line) that has brought down every unix
system he
 GN> has tried it on (with permission. half a dozen different
breeds/versions
 GN> of unix when I last heard, a couple of years ago).  I'm not
excusing OS/2
 GN> for being crashable despite claims to the contrary, but it
doesn't shock
 GN> me that it happens.  I wonder if anyone will ever crash NT?

How about a program listing for that Unix killer program?  Maybe
somebody can port it to NT and OS/2 and see what happens?


--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
Organization: Masters student, Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:10:29 -0500 
From: Trevor Tompkins <tt17+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: os/2 in byte magazine -- planned use of mach kernel!!

>     I think this is sort of old news on this newsgroup, but IBM has
>been planning on using the Mach kernel for quite a while (relatively
>speaking).  Microsoft was working on the micro-kernel for quite a
>while, and IBM was going to use that Kernel for OS/2 3.0.  MS and
>IBM have since broken up, and the Kernel MS was working on has
>been developed into Windows NT.  IBM went on to look at a couple of
>other kernels, and decided that the Mach kernel would best suit
>their needs.
>    The main reason for having the Mach kernel is for poratability.
>There has been a lot of talk about the differences in the two
>kernels, and basically, they are fairly equivalent.

>Somebody correct me if I'm wrong...

IBM has been doing quite a bit of joint research with Carnegie Mellon
Unversity, where the Kernal was developed, so it is really no surprise
that they chose the Mach.

--Trevor
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: mph@plasma.apana.org.au (Martin Peter Howell)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Organization: APANA site, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:49:51 GMT

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>This will kill any Unix system:

>	while (1) fork();

>Such a thing can be done on most multitasking systems, and will kill
>any OS that allows user-level processes to spawn child processes.

No, some UNIX systems will only allow a certain number of processes
per user to avoid exactly this situation (they will also limit the
amount of physical RAM you can have).  Most UNIXs, however, don't
have this feature enabled (or simply don't have it) because they are
run in environments where the users are trusted.
On a large system, the above program will only bring the user's session 
to a crawl and not effect anyone else.

-Martin.
mph@plasma.apana.org.au
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: COMDEX Awards
Date: 24 Nov 92 00:50:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Nov24.005052.4341
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <1992Nov24.004756.15643@news.Hawaii.Edu> tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:
>Chris Waters writes:
>
>>>	Windows is a joke to install.  run setup, swap disks.  No 
>>>	matter who you are or what your system is, I doubt you'll
>>>	fail to install--_properly_--on the first attempt.
>
>> Gee, never worked in customer support, have you?  I'll grant that anyone
>> with half a brain could probably install it.  But there's a lot of peole
>> out there buying computers who seem to lack any central nervous system. 
>
>Yep.  How about the user who called support because the instructions said
>to press any key.  She couldn't find the key labeled 'Any'.  How about the
>one who couldn't get the program to install properly because the second
>floppy was forced into the drive along with the first floppy.

Reminds of on instance at UNISYS, when we had to field a phone call
from some people back at the main postal service office in McClean
Va. After describing the problem too me, "It's doesn't work", and
then trying to get a more detailed explanation, I asked the person
on the other end to send a copy of the disk back to us for
evaluation.

Two days later, a packed arrived with two pieces of paper in it.
The person in question had ripped open the floppy jacket and had
xeroxed both sides of the disk,and mailed the paper to us as per
instructions.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
From: jahonen@cs.joensuu.fi (Jarmo Ahonen)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 07:16:32 GMT

tommy@msc.cornell.edu (Mike Thompson) writes:

>Are others getting as frustrated with the OS/2 environment as I.  Or have I
>just been spoiled by the relative stability of large UNIX environments.  As I
>said at the beginning, I am working with a company to put out a 32 bit app. 
>But I am getting so frustrated that I wonder if its really worth the continued
>effort.

Well... I have been able to crash various UNIX machines when 
programming. For example Suns are very easy (or were that) to
be made "hung" with KEE development environment or with pure
LISP environments. The same has been true with almost any workstation
environment I have used, i.e. you can hang it by just trying to 
develope your code :-).

For me the OS/2 has been an improvement. With Windows+DOS I were almost
unable to do anything -- my programs tended to crash the system even
if they worked OK with small datasets... The WIndows memory management
did something strange and things went bad... About a dozen crashes per
day. Now my machine crashes only three times a week. A definite improvement,
but not even nearly as good as bigger UNIX machines or VMS.  

Generally I have been quite impressed with OS/2... Not ideal but best this
far IMHO. Although it will be interesting to see the final release of NT,
which I may even skip if there are enough useful programs for OS/2 at
that day.

BTW. Do you system really hang or does the WPS hang? Sometimes it happens to
me that WPS hangs and then dies but somehow starts again. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jarmo J. Ahonen
Computing Centre, Lappeenranta University of Technology, P.O.Box 20,
SF-53851 Lappeenranta, Finland. email: Jarmo.Ahonen@lut.fi

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11! : -)
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:44:51 GMT

>In article <1992Nov22.022735.8357@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov21.101921.4839@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>>And nothing looks quite so unprofessional as a letter set in a fixed
>>>>>width font printed on a dot matrix printer.  I see that and I say,
>>>>
>...
>> ... it isn't the appearance of printed copy that matters but,
>>rather, the substance of what is communicated.  Sure, it's nice to look
>>at a neat, well-fontificated presentation, but substance ought to win in
>>the battle between illusion and reality in anything that matters (I
>>except advertising from this, of course!).
>
>Well, what "ought" to be and what ARE are different.  A document's
>appearance is important, and telling;  if someone isn't 
>willing to take the effort to produce something decent looking, it probably 
>isn't worth much.  It's the "quality" and "pride" issues, I guess...
>
>And, no, I'm not in advertising, but computer science... 
>
>Bill Warner
>
>P.S.  Death to Macintosh "City" fonts...
>
I agree with you on this latter point!

I fear that the American Way of Life (tm) has taught us to prize
superficiality over substance in all areas of life.  It's a shame, a
real shame.

What 'ought' to be and whar 'are' [sic!] are decisions each individual
makes.  If you're telling me that a spiffy-looking brochure will, in
fact, make you purchase some prime swamp land I may happen to have in
Florida, give me a call!  I can whip up something snappy-looking in a
matter of minutes!

Seriously, though, do you think billion dollar deals or revolutionary
scholarship depend on how slick something looks?  Does an important
contract lose its value simply because it was typed on a Selectric?  Do
you think I turn down grant awards just because the granting agency
typed it or, if word-processed, chose a Courier font? 

For some of us, at least, substance (neatly done, of course, I don't
like grading papers students have drooled upon) matters far more than
glitz.  

Cheers...
Joe
jmalloy@hamilton.edu

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8604 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2819
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Workers hate windoze, revolution at 11! :-)
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:37:35 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <GERRY.92Nov18181145@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:

>And nothing looks quite so unprofessional as a letter set in a fixed
>width font printed on a dot matrix printer.  I see that and I say,
>what a bunch of dweebs.  I was doing that 15 years ago, haven't they
>grown up yet?

Gee, you must have a real problem with places that use TYPEWRITERS.
What makes you think that what you've done in the past 15 years is
GROWING UP?  Maybe they're right and you're wrong?  :-)

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8590 comp.os.os2.misc:37107
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:42:36 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <sherman.722075047@foster> sherman@unx.sas.com (Chris Sherman) writes:
>Now, how does OS/2 handle crashes?  Windows?  Amiga?  Mac?

OS/2 gives you a full-screen popup message.  If the OS crashes, the
system is halted.  You can produce a set of dump disks from here.  The
dump disks are only meaningful to IBM.  Similar to the system core
file that unix produces.

Windows gives you an UAE or a GPF.  Sometimes you can just kill the
aberrant application, but other times you must reboot.  GPF's give you
an address and a return code and an application name.  They may be
trapped by a debugger.

The Amiga halts, displaying a "Guru Meditation number" on the top of
the screen.  I don't know what you can do from there.

The Mac say "Sorry A system error occurred" and the system is halted
with a return code number.  You can reboot or drop
to a primative ROM debugger from here.  You can install better
debugger hardware/software to drop into if you prefer.

>Comments?  Any reason why OS/2 couldn't do something like this? 

It does.  But it's a well-kept secret.  It's supposed to be a
last-resort effort.  If you can replicate the problem, IBM may ask you
to prepare dump diskettes and mail them in for analysis.
-- 
  |)  David Charlap          | .signature confiscated by FBI due to
 /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | an ongoing investigation into the
((|,)                        | source of these .signature virusses
 ~|~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:48:38 GMT

To Joe:

You keep failing to grasp that the bootstrap loader is NOT part of the
BIOS, it is a totally seperate function, ONLY in the same black little
thingy. As long as you can't see that, your arguments about the BIOS
being part of DOS lack credibility.

Good luck
Erik



-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
From: sillett@edc3jr.gsph.pitt.edu (Robert L. Sillett)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Win32 support in OS/2?
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:58:29 GMT
Organization: Epidemiology Data Center, University of Pittsburgh


I've seen postings to this newsgroup talking about the possible
support of Win32 in OS/2.  How can this be done?  Didn't IBM give up
all rights to Window NT/Win32?  I doubt that MS would license any code
to IBM, let alone for free.

And yet on another NT thread: now that Novell is fighting with
Microsoft, can we ever expect to see NetWare support in NT?  At the
Win32 seminar this summer Novell was pretty much clueless about NT and
its level of support.

--- Bob


--
| Robert L. Sillett                Internet:    sillett@edc3jr.gsph.pitt.edu  |
| Systems Analyst		   US Mail:     127 Parran Hall               |
| Certified Novell Engineer (CNE)               130 DeSoto St.                |
| University of Pittsburgh                      Pittsburgh, PA  15261         |
From: Joe@twistor.dialix (Joe Katnic)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re:   How to make OS/2 look bad ...
Distribution: world
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:43:54 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <1992Nov11.185807.413@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>In article <Joe.004z@twistor.dialix> Joe@twistor.dialix (Joe Katnic) writes:
>
>>>	IBM's corporate IQ.  Claiming 4 megs as the minimum
>>>	for OS/2 is like claiming that the minimum for 
>>>	Windows 3.0 was an 8088 and CGA.
>>>
[etc]
>
>Where've you been?  This ain't just IBM that this happens with.  See above
>with Windows 3.0, and 8088, and a Herc (to do one worse than CGA).
>
>Ted

Sorry, 
 Been on the other side of the world.
 I realise that this happens with other software manufacturers.
 Just putting forward how I interpret IBM memory claims.

--
Joe Katnic  Perth, Western Australia  Joe@twistor.DIALix.oz.au      _--_|\ 
                                   (ALT: jkatnic@DIALiz.oz.au)     /      \
"A search for the ultimate              Phone: (+619) 474 3939 --->\_.--._/
 mathematical reality inevitably                                         v 
 creates fairy tales, not science".. E.J. Lerner.
From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Windows
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:25:18 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <93877@rphroy.ph.gmr.com>, rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer) writes:
> When I posted the IBM press release about the PC Magazine, PC Computing and
> PC World awards to OS/2, I expected some controversy.  I love what I see!!!
> 
> Seems like every MS-Windows advocate available has been mobilized to get on
> here and bash OS/2.  Hey folks, whats the problem?  Windows 3.0 works, 3.1
> works better and NT may be better yet.  OS/2 is better that any flavor of 
> MS-Windows for many things and not as good at others.  For the things that
> make a difference to me OS/2 is best, so I don't try to cram it down the 
> throats of Windows users.  Nor do I see OS/2 advocates mounting such fervent
> attacks in comp.os.windows.advocacy.
> 
> Are you afraid folks will see through Windows without your smoke screen?
> 
> Doug

	Well, windows is good in a lot of areas.  It is, I admit,
my favorite Dos Shell.

							-Brad


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: os/2 in byte magazine -- planned use of mach kernel!!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:29:40 GMT

In article <8+y1_sh@rpi.edu>,
gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile) writes:
>there is an small article on page 38 of dec. byte mag that
>says that IBM is planning to come out with a version of os/2
>based on the mach kernel!!  James Cannavino, IBM vice pres
>& general manager of Personal Systems line basically claims
>that the new version will be released in 18 to 24 mos, and
>will be able to run dos, windows, os/2 and UNIX programs !!
>I only have one question...  why didn't they do this in the
>first place?  If they had done this first place, I would
>probably be convinced that os/2 had more of a future, and
>would be running it on my machine.
>

     I think this is sort of old news on this newsgroup, but IBM has
been planning on using the Mach kernel for quite a while (relatively
speaking).  Microsoft was working on the micro-kernel for quite a
while, and IBM was going to use that Kernel for OS/2 3.0.  MS and
IBM have since broken up, and the Kernel MS was working on has
been developed into Windows NT.  IBM went on to look at a couple of
other kernels, and decided that the Mach kernel would best suit
their needs.
     The main reason for having the Mach kernel is for poratability.
There has been a lot of talk about the differences in the two
kernels, and basically, they are fairly equivalent.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong...

Timothy Miller
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 support is late
Date: 24 Nov 92 02:24:50 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov22.194009.22122@microsoft.com>, gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon
 Letwin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.093958.17197@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauer
t) writes:
>>In article <1efsf4INN946@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE>, lars@cs.tu-berlin.de (Lars Wi
th) writes:
>>|> Thus an OS/2 Windows support user will always get the latest version
>>|> of Windows a couple of months later than Windows NT users will get it.
>>
>>Hmm, so March to December is "a couple of months" is it?
>
>This brings a smile to my lips.  I remember back in April when this group
>was full of crowing about how IBM had "Win 3.1 running only 24 hours
>after it's release".  I recall pointing out that they had a DEMO running,
>and that about 5 months after IBM received a code complete distribution,
>but - evil being that I am - I was shouted down by the yahoos.
>
>Funny, the yahoos seem a bit quiet on this point today.  Let me guess;
>IBM did the work in 24 hours, but it's taken 10 months to decide what
>color to paint it....
>
>       gordon letwin
>       not a spokesbeing
>

This coming from the same company that took 2 years to produce an upgrade to
Windows.  Give it a rest, you're just as guilty of the same sin.

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Distribution: jadpc2
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 13:16:38 -0800
From: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Subject: OS/2 Crashproof? Well, almost.
Comment-To: Mike_Levis@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Reply-To: Craig_Swanson@f514.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/514

 ML> These two things I know of can cause OS/2 to crash (not including
the
 ML> system bugs that the original poster mentioned):
 ML>    1.  bad device driver (whether badly written, a beta, or
mis-installed
 ML>        like using an 8514 driver on an SVGA system)
 ML>    2.  CLI + loop

 ML> A stray pointer can cause the DOS session to crash, but I cannot
see how
 ML> it can cause OS/2 to crash.  If the code you give me crashes my
machine
 ML> running OS/2, then I will add that to my list above.

Item #2 (CLI + loop) does not cause EISA or MCA machines to hang.  It
only affects many ISA machines which do not have an NMI watchdog
timer.


--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
 * Origin: OS/2 Connection @ La Jolla, CA  <619-558-9475> (1:202/514)
From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 an "operating system"?
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:44:06 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <1992Nov13.180457.12367@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Nov12.175649.10295@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov11.220017.5830@ais.com> bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov08.105045.907@donau.et.tudelft.nl>, linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>>>
>>>The claim that the PC BIOS is part of DOS is just plain silly.  Besides
>>>the things that Erik mentions, DOS has been adapted for machines that
>>>do NOT use an IBM PC-compatible BIOS -- like the DEC Rainbow, for
>>>example.  Programs that use only the DOS INT 2?h interrupts (where ? is
>>>a number from 0-f) work just fine on such machines, thank you.
>>>
>>>The IBM PC BIOS is part of the _IBM PC_ architecture, not a part of
>>>MS-DOS.  The version of MS-DOS that you're most familiar with just
>>>happens to be adapted for the IBM-PC.
>>>
>>>Bruce C. Wright
>
>
>>No.  You misunderstand me.  What I am saying is that the BIOS is just as
>>much a part of DOS (in the abstraction called an "Operating System") just
>>as much as the Network Layer is part of the Transport Layer (in the OSI
>>model of a networking environment) because the Transport Layer can't
>>*exist* without the Network Layer (at least and be runnable).
>
>No, Joe, he took you at what you said.  By the kind of thinking you
>exhibit here, the Intel CPU is also 'part of DOS'; an equally silly
>assertion to the one you made, by the way.
>
>Let's see what we can prove here with this.  Ok, if it is a given that
>the BIOS is part of DOS (because it uses it), then it follows that the
>BIOS is part of OS/2 (because it will use it if it doesn't find a
>specialized hardware driver for a piece of hardware).  That makes DOS
>and OS/2 the same thing (via the reasoning that things made of the
>same bits are the same things).  Yes, very silly and violates some
>logical rules.  So does the contention that the BIOS is part of DOS
>and your attempt now to 'deny' what you said.
>
>So, which has the 'better' BIOS; DOS or OS/2.  They are identical, but
>one of them is better if you go by the way Joe measures 'better'.



More than that.  Since the BIOS contains the software to initialize the
hardware, an Intel clone is just a useless hulk of hardware if the BIOS
is removed.

You can't boot the hardware without the BIOS.

If you can't initialize and boot the hardware, then you can't boot any
OS.
From: amitp@ruf.rice.edu (Amit J Patel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Programmers are more productive under DOS than under OS/2!!!
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:18:43 GMT
Reply-To: amitp@owlnet.rice.edu
Organization: Rice University

Ever since I got OS/2, I've been playing games and messing with colors
and fonts instead of working.  I haven't worked on my shareware
programs for over three months now!!!  What should I do?  Go back to DOS?




		Amit
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy