HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:33:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.104711.22331@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.184359.9551@iscsvax.uni.edu>, brackin5483@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>|> I got one question.  When Windows becomes the only operating system out there(
>|> according to Bill) and Microsoft drives everyone else producing Windows
>|> softwere in to bankruptcy.  Then what will happen to prices of operating
>|> systems and application software, once Microsoft has established a monopoly?
>
>OK, worst case scenario--Bill Gates drives every single OS vendor right into
>the ground.  Windows rules forever in a brave new world of point and click right?
>
>The minute that Microsoft starts charging more for Windows than it would
>cost for someone else to write a clone or a competing OS Microsoft would
>have competetors again.  
>
>Case in point:  How many brands of Salt are there out there?  Morton's pretty
>much has the market to itself.  
Really, I think the Lesle people will argue with you quite a bit, and every
store I know has a Plain Wrap Brand on the shelves.  In shelf space (a 
measure of profitibility in markets) Mortons has less.  Of course, Salt is
so easy to produce cheaply, Mortons had better not try to dominate, some
silly wolf with an eye for profit will undercut them considerably.  Sea Salt
is a brand produced by one such wolf who found a niche market, and does
quite will.


--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: Information Week: OS/2, one of 1992's Top Products
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 01:51:04 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
: In article <pathak-231292164232@virtual.mitre.org> pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
: >From Dec. 21 of information week [copied without permission]
: >Article titled: 1992's Top Products and Services
: >The 10 Most Likely To Succeed
: >OS/2 2.0
: >After years of delays and feuds with co-developer Microsoft Corp., IBM
: >finally shipped its 32-bit operating system.  It was well worth the wait. 
: >OS/2 2.0 is both revolutionary -- as the first 32-bit, Intel-based system
: 		^^^^^		          ^^^^^ ^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
: 	Wrong.
: 
: 
: >-- and versatile in its ability to run multiplatform applications for DOS,
: >Windows, and OS/2.  Processing 32 bits of data at a time improces
: 							  ^^^^^^^^
: >multitasking functions and reduces system crashes compared with Microsoft's
:    ^^^^		^^^	     ^^	      ^^^   ^^^     ^^^^ 
: >DOS or Windows.  For instance, portable computer users of OS/2 2.0 can send
:  ^^^    ^^^^^^^
:  
: 	1.  32 bits doesn't have jack to do with 
: 	"improving multitasking functions
: 	2.  Nor does OS/2 crash less than DOS

If they'd changed the "or" to "and" they'd have hit the nail on the
head...

: 	3.  Nor does 32 bits have to do with any of it.
: 
: 
: >a DOS file by modem to their home offices in one window while
: >simultaneously writing a letter in a Windows word processor.  The OS/2
: 
: 
: 	A windows user can do the same.  

yeah, but only at modem speeds or up to around 4800bps. Any faster and
Windows starts losing interrupts.

: 
: 
: >model will likely become a standard in corporate computing where such
: >advances in flexibility and mission-critical platfroms are imperative for
: >users.
: 
: 	Frankly, I wouldn't hold this prediction any higher than
: 	I'd hold the ones you see in the enquirer.  They obviously
: 	don't know what the hell they're talking about.  I'm suprised
: 	they didn't say something like"32 bits improves the capability
: 	of the user interface"

I think you'll find most corporate IBM users are tending to OS/2; its
cohesion with their mainframes is an outstanding plus.

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
From: robs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Robert Suh)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:12:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec23.231236.133
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Dec20.215347.1614@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>|> AT best, it will
>|> just require them to try an play an little fair(er) with the other children.
>
>I _still_ don't understand what isn't "fair" about what Microsoft is doing.
>Why shouldn't Microsoft let its application programmers talk to its OS
>programmers?  What is wrong with giving their own programmers an edge?

Awe, hit it right on the head.  Is there some unwritten law that states
that MS can't use so-called 'undocumented calls', sure it would be nice if
this world was fair and everyone gets a fair shake, but come on.  This
'undocumented calls' business is blown WAY out of proportion.  Apple
probably used 'undocumented calls' with it's software application base(CLARIS)
, and I'm sure SUN, IBM, HP, or any other company that produces both
Operation Systems and Applications do t ue so called 'undocumented calls'.

If Lotus or Novell don't trust Microsoft, why not just make a competing 
operationg system?  As I see it, they are just sitting there crying 
about fairness against a company that is better managed.  

Not to mention that MS does have a pretty good track record for working with
other companies.  For example, MS does a pretty good job helping ISV's,
compared to IBM. 

"Alls fair in Software, if you don't like that, tough darts"
DISCLAIMER - I live about a hop-skip-and-a-jump away from Microsoft's Campus,
take it as it is.  (No relation to Microsoft though...)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:37:39 GMT

In article <8261@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec30.201544.27892@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >I have ignored every argument based on name-calling--simply labeling something
|> >"sleazy, underhanded, etc" doesn't make it so.
|> 
|> ...but we've shown why it's sleazy and underhanded. You say there's a choice.
|> Sure there is: it's a choice between paying a royalty for every machine and
|> going out of business because MS charges quite a bit more for the privilege of
|> not having to pay a royalty on every machine. Some choice.

*sigh* If you want to be a dealer of McDonald's burgers you have to sign a
deal with McDonald's not to sell Whoppers.  Is McDonald's liscencing
agreements "sleezy and underhanded?"  Is this "strongarming Wendy's out of
business?"  Is this putting the Colonel at an "unfair competitive
disadvantage?"  Should sheriff FTC round up a possie on the Ponderosa?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:08:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.053808.14975@frog.CRDS.COM> rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.033418.28702@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec24.035348.26595@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>>the 125 meg drive. I have 8 megs of 70ns RAM and the system runs very much
>>>like OS/2 on 4 megs with no HPFS. 
>>
>>
>>	As it should.  8 megs is the NT minimum.
>>
>>	Plus, you *should expect crashes*.  Installing any OS,
>>	NT or OS/2, is not the same as just plugging in an HD 
>>	with the os installed.  It must be configured for your hardware
>>	and your motherboard.
>>
>>	I should tell you some of what you get when moving 
>>	OS/2 by backing up to tape.  
>>
>>
>>>I don't hink I am in any danger whatever of becoming an NT bigot based on what
>>>I have seen so far. Having gone from the OS/2 2.1 beta to the NT
>>>beta.....there is no real comparison. 
>>
>>
>>	Add 8 more megs and reinstall the system from scratch, then
>>	repost.  As it stands, you're FUDding.
>
>
>This is an interesting observation.  I commonly move hard drives loaded with
>UNIX between Intel based systems with differing hardware.  I have never had a
>problem that could be attributed to this evil practice and I have been doing
>it for years.
>
>
>I haven't tried the same thing with OS/2, but I wouldn't expect any problem.
>
>
>If you have a PC clone, and the motherboard dies leaving all the other bits
>of hardware intact, then you should be able to drop another motherboard
>into the machine, and boot it up again.
>
This exact situation occured where I work with a 386 running SCO.  We
replaced the motherboard with a new one, which contained a different
manufacturer's BIOS, and had no problems.  We also constanly swap hard
disks on Sun SPARCstations, and have never had a problem there either.
-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 3 Jan 1993 15:04:32 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec31.051750.5270@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>    Jay, have you seen _any_ real numbers on this?  All I've
>seen on this newsgroup, and I've been following the thread from
>the beginning, is supposition and made up figures.

OK...so either contribute some real numbers, or else admit that we're working
with the best information we have.

[example numbers deleted]
The only catch is that I'm compelled to buy DOS and Windows, whether I want it
or not, whether I'm already licensed for it or not, and whether I intend to
run it or not.

Meanwhile, MS gets to inflate its sales figures falsely, by claiming I'm a
DOS/Windows user when I'm not.

>     If any application is using undocumented calls, it runs the
>risk of not working in future releases of the OS.  No one has shown
>a shred of evidence that Microsoft apps are somehow immune to this
>effect.

Take off your MS-colored glasses for a moment.

If MS uses undocumented calls, then the app developers get advance warning
that the undocumented call they're using is going away, and they can hit the
street the minute that the new version is out with an update that will work
with the new version. Lotus, for example, doesn't have that luxury. This is on
top of the advantage that MS developers get in the first place by knowing that
the call is there.

(Of course, MS will charge for the upgrade...thus bringing in even more
bucks.)

>    There also isn't any evidence that any Microsoft application uses
>an undocumented call to gain any significant performance advantage.

If not, then why is it done?

>     Why would an OS/2 developer upgrade to MSC 7?  The product
>doesn't support OS/2 - such an upgrade would be silly.

Nevertheless, there have been people in this very forum that have said they
did exactly that. Where are they? Out in the cold, out the several hundred
bucks they spent on it. Once again, MS abandons its politically incorrect
users.

>     Show me foundation for them, then.

The foundation is locked away in the twisty little mind of Bill Gates.

>     Based on rumor.  Foundationless.  The FTC hasn't done _anything_,
>Jay.  They haven't gone right to court.  So where's your foundation
>here?

Yet.

Haven't you been reading the articles reposted here? I seriously doubt that
major magazines and newspapers would print that kind of thing unless they
believed it to be true.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10887 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3412
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Better File Management??
Date: 1 Jan 93 23:29:49 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.misc
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1992Dec31.203146.24537@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>	I'd like to see a full-screen file-management program along the lines
>	of TI's little 30k utility, "LFM" (laptop file manager?).  quick,
>	efficient, flexible.  (Needs a move command, tho).  I'm sure someone
>	could write one quickly.
>	(In other words, I'd like to see IBM include a number of text-based
>	utilities [yes, despite slow scrolling] with OS/2 and make them
>	an option..)

There are many such utilities available via anonymous ftp from
ftp-os2.nmsu.edu.  Take a look at FileJet, File Commando, XList,
DirMan, or any of the others.

>	I hope they make *sure* that is is an option and that the
>	software to do it is optionally installed.  I consider this
>	stuff a *total* waste under Windows... 

Re: MMPM/2.  It is totally optional, yes.  Good move.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:10:37 GMT

In article <1i41ibINN78f@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>tpurves@sygnus.uucp (Timothy Purves) writes:
>>The FTC should just go and disolve themselfs. Look what happended to AT&T...
>>it the best thing that could have happened for AT&T. I have been in meetings,
>>where the spokesperson was literly having  orgasms on the stage, talking about
>>what they were going to do, and what they could now get away with!.
>
>You actually saw an AT&T spokesman have an orgasm on a stage?  I would expect
>that the speaker would have noticed that he was getting an erection and would
>have left in embarrasement before actually ejaculating in front of a bunch
>of people.  Was he able to have this orgasm entirely on the basis of his
>talk, or did he have to rub against the podium?  Was there much reaction
>from the audience?  (I'm asking all these questions because someone literally
>having an orgasm in these circumatances is so unusual, I'm curious).
>
>--Tim Smith

Come, come, now; I wouldn't be so cocksure about this. (Or were you just
trying to get a rise out of us?)  Really, what was the thrust of your
argument?  (One could go on, but I desist...)   :)

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 30 Dec 92 16:28:38 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization

In article <8239@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>They are straight. The difference in cost, if it is anywhere near as
>substantial as others on this group have led me to believe, _is_ force. If
>you're going to charge me more money for the privilege of not bundling DOS and
>Windows with every machine I sell, then you're forcing me to do so. This is
>predatory pricing at its worst.

From the above I conclude that you think that force is a bad thing.
After a zillion of postings claiming that there is nothing wrong
with force, and therefore everything is fine with the FTC forcing
MS to change its marketing, I becoming a little confused.

>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
> "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis

Dov
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 09:18:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.120639.23608@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
> In article <9212213006@ritz.mordor.com>, ritz@ritz.mordor.com (Christopher Mauritz) writes:
> 
> |> Gates.  Just remember how expensive long distance service was before the 
> |> government forced a more competetive market on Ma Bell...or should I say
> |> before Bill McGowan (former chairman of MCI) tricked the federal government
> |> into forcing a more competetive market on Ma Bell... :-)
> 
> Agreed, but a more precise wording would be "Just remember how expensive 
> long distance service was before the goverment stopped forbiding people
> to compete with AT&T."  
> 
> AT&T was only a monopoly because it was illegal to compete with it.  In fact,
> I can't name a single example of a monopoly which wasn't created by
> the goverment.
> 

Groan.....you don't know of any monopolies because the FTC has been breaking
them up since the 1920's.......(doesn't anybody read history anymore?)
 
Standard Oil (You know, J D Rockefeller) was broken up because it bacame an
effective monopoly. IBM was very nearly broken up. There are numerous
instances of too-powerful companies being forced to relinquish control over
markets.
 
Steve
 
oh, Yeah......OS/2 (gotta stay on topic, right?)
 

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 2 Jan 93 00:43:21 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <29103@oasys.dt.navy.mil> jwhite@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Joseph White) writes:
>>     How about professional baseball or football in the U.S.?  Neither
>>was government created - both are monopolies.
>But both had anti-trust exemptions granted by the government!  So
>while the government didn't create them, they have certainly helped
>them continue.  

Professional baseball's monopoly is legally protected by special
exemption.  There is no similar protection for professional football.
In fact, the now defunct United States Football League won its civil
suit against the NFL.  Damages were set at one dollar, but they did
win.  The case is still active.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:06:25 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <1992Dec20.203000.878@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <8194@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec20.052923.23904@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>|> >Yep, that's the good ol' American way of doing business alright.  If you can't
>|> >compete with someone, just get the Federal Goverment to break up their 
>|> >company.  The real "predatory practices" going on here are those vultures
>|> >of rival companies who are waiting to pick the bones of what's left of
>|> >Microsoft after the FTC's guts the carcass.
>|> 
>|> I had to go back to the top of this article just to see if it was being posted
>|> from microsoft.com. This is some of the brown-nosiest writing I've seen in
>|> some time. 
>
>Nope--I'm not from Microsoft, I just hate to see _anybody_ torn apart by the FTC.
>
>|>The simple fact is that MS isn't playing fair - they force
>|> manufacturers to sell machines with Windows and DOS preloaded (don't believe
>|> that? just try to buy one without!),
>
>Wait a minute--they "force" manufacturers to sell Windows and DOS?  Microsoft
>won't hold a gun to the head of anybody who wants to sell their machine with
>DR DOS or OS/2 preloaded.  However, the FTC most certainly will hold a gun
>to Bill Gate's head and escort him to the Federal Pen if he doesn't obey
>their dictums.  Whose using "force" here--Microsoft or its rival companies?

By selling software, DOS and Windows, to manufacturers at giveaway prices,
they use the power of money to force their product on the industry.  They
use the statistics generated by shipping their product with every machine
to convince the media that they control the market.  In truth, no one knows
how many people actually use Windows 3.x.  Microsoft already had their 
contracts in place with vendors long before DR DOS and OS/2 came along.

>|> they use undocumented OS calls in their
>|> apps, and they remove features from their development tools just to hinder a
>|> competing OS. Sure sounds like they're playing fair to me.
>
>*sigh*  The OS belongs to Microsoft.  Its THEIRS.  They OWN it.  They have the
>right to tell, or not to tell, anybody _anything_ about it because its not
>yours, its not mine, its not the FTC's, its Microsoft's.  That's what 
>"ownership" is all about.

But it shows that they are afraid to compete on an even keel with everyone
else.  Those who can, do, those who can't, cheat.


And I'm still waiting for bug fixes for Microsoft FORTRAN and Pascal for
CPM.
From: rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:59:12 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute

sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

>In article <BzoG15.21q@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
> writes:
>>
>>And do you know how big this market share is?  In 1991, MS received
>>about 25% of the total profit of all software sold.  No other company
>>is even close to this amount of profit per total market sales.

>Where did you get these figures?  In 1991, IBM made slightly more than 10
>billion dollars in gross revenue from software alone.  MS made apporximately 2
>billion and some change.  How do you figure that MS made 25% of all profit
>when they made 1/5 of what IBM did?

Okay, write on the blackboard 500 times...

"Gross revenue does NOT equal earnings"

If IBM had a 5% profit margin on 10 billion, they made 500 million.

If MS had a 25% profit margin on 2 billion, they made 500 million.

See how that works?  Good, I knew you could figure it out....

Robert
--
| Robert L. Howard              |   Georgia Tech Research Institute     |
| robert.howard@matd.gatech.edu |   MATD Laboratory                     |
| (404) 528-7165                |   Atlanta, Georgia  30332             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when |
| the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows what they |
| do with it.  Bake it into pies, probably.  Anything to avoid creating |
| jobs." -- Dave Barry                                                  |
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:55:52 GMT


--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy