HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: What is LPF position on AT&T v. BSDI?
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:21:59 GMT
	<FRIEDMAN.92Jul28101124@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

Note that it has been reported in comp.unix.bsd that the Regents at
UCB are now included in the lawsuit.  It is my understanding that NET2
is an incomplete system with all AT&T code deleted and only software
which ORIGINATED from UCB is included.  If this is true, then USL must
be claiming something based on architectural considerations.  If the
code was written at UCB how else could they have a claim on it?  I
understand that USL could be claiming that in essence someone sat down
at a terminal with 2 windows, one with an AT&T source program, another
with an empty file and copied the algorithm and structure.  However,
what program could that have happened with?  UCB didn't try to emulate
any AT&T functionality until after NET2.  Everything UCB did before
NET2 was new functionality.  As far as I can tell, this is
essentionally a Look-And-Feel-type suit.

On the otherhand, one of the benefits that may come from this suit is
that we may finally get a verified AT&T-free NET2 release for free.
This because AT&T will be forced to identify exactly what parts of
NET2 are non-free and it will all be disclosed for public consumption.
Unless they somehow claim that every part of NET2 is non-free.  Which
would only work if they made a claim based on architectural
considerations.  In which case the LPF should definitely get involved.
From: brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Rating of gcc in Unix Review
Date: 29 Jul 1992 11:50:31 -0400
Organization: Widener University Computer Science Dept, Chester PA
NNTP-Posting-Host: betty.cs.widener.edu

This month's issue of Unix Review compares four C compilers (MetaWare,
GCC, Sun's unbundled C, and Lucid C).  They really trash GCC, giving
it F's on Installation because it's distributed as source, and "N/A"
on documentation, claiming it includes none.  (They define
documentation as printed and bound books, not electronic, apparently;
at least to the extent that Sun's Answerbook will fall under the
umbrella.)  In the area of overall performance, they claim MetaWare
and Lucid lead the pack, with GCC behind Sun's unbundled C.  Hmm.

Had they compared GCC with respect to how Cygnus distributes it (with
much of what they were looking for in the area of really quick
turnaround between cutting the shrink-wrap and being able to compile),
the report card probably would've looked different in a few places, I
think.

Really strange, their approach with the testing.

-- 
Brendan Kehoe, Sun Network Manager                      brendan@cs.widener.edu
Widener University                                                 Chester, PA
 "But Billy! A *small* allowance prepares you for a lifetime of small salaries
  and for your Social Security payments."                     -- Family Circus
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: kelsey@mdd.comm.mot.com (Joe Kelsey)
Subject: Unix Review of GCC -- yet another side issue...
Summary: Unix Review -- not a bad magazine.
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:52:46 GMT

In <1992Jul31.022920.4763@chpc.utexas.edu> jonathan@chpc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) writes:

>It's not perfect, and the gcc-review botch has certainly lowered my
>rating of it, but for me Unix Review is still worth reading.

Besides which, Unix Review has Stan Kelley-Bootle writing the Devil's Advocate
column -- probably the best columnist in the computer industry today!

/Joe
From: bmp@cow.ecs.oz (Bruce Paterson)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: GNU 56000 C Compiler
Keywords: GNU, QUERY, COST, MOTOROLA
Date: 24 Jul 92 09:37:46 GMT
Organization: Email Electronics, Melbourne, Australia.


Hello.
I have a query relating to GNU in general and a gnu C compiler for
the DSP56000 in particular.
Firstly, this machine does NOT currently receive this group due to
a link limitation, but I can post to it. Any replies to me must be
emailed for me to receive them.

We have been looking for a C compiler for the Motorola 56001 DSP.
Motorola tells us they have a GNU C compiler available for A$914
and the source is available for a massive "handling" charge of A$250.

Is Motorola really in a position to charge for this compiler when a GNU
compiler is usually free except for distribution ? Is this charge
purely Motorola's charge for the documentation printed on Motorola
letterhead paper, or does it represent some other special deal with
the Open Software Foundation ?

Motorola claims they provide no support for the compiler. Who does &
at what cost ?
Is the "source" available via FTP anyway ?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help clarify these issues for me.
						Bruce VK3TJN


-- 
    /\  /\  /\  /   /                                  ACSnet:  bmp@cow.ecs.oz
   /  \/  \/  \/   /    MARTIN COMMUNICATIONS          UUCP:    ...!munnari!
  /   /\  /\  /\  /        Bruce Paterson                       bmp@cow.ecs.oz 
 /   /  \/  \/  \/   Electronics Design Engineer       Callsign: VK3TJN
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons)
Subject: Re: Rating of gcc in Unix Review
Organization: Inland Sea
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 17:28:22 GMT

It's worth noting that Cygnus could get a lot of free publicity by
offering their gnuware packages for review.  It would also eliminate
many of the problems the reviewer apparently had with GCC.  You 
listening, Brendan? :-)
-- 
"There's a very fine line  between a groove and a rut.
 Fine line between eccentrics and people who are just plain nuts."
	-- Christine Lavin, "Prisoners Of Their Hairdos"
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: mcvey@mpr.ca (Iain McVey)
Subject: Re: Rating of gcc in Unix Review
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 17:29:12 GMT

In article <156eo7INN6d3@betty.cs.widener.edu> brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
>This month's issue of Unix Review compares four C compilers (MetaWare,
>GCC, Sun's unbundled C, and Lucid C).  They really trash GCC, giving
>it F's on Installation because it's distributed as source, and "N/A"
>on documentation, claiming it includes none.  (They define
>documentation as printed and bound books, not electronic, apparently;
>at least to the extent that Sun's Answerbook will fall under the
>umbrella.)  In the area of overall performance, they claim MetaWare
>and Lucid lead the pack, with GCC behind Sun's unbundled C.  Hmm.
>
>Had they compared GCC with respect to how Cygnus distributes it (with
>much of what they were looking for in the area of really quick
>turnaround between cutting the shrink-wrap and being able to compile),
>the report card probably would've looked different in a few places, I
>think.
>
>Really strange, their approach with the testing.

Did they compare prices?

Not much competition for gcc there...

- Iain -
-- 
Iain McVey (mcvey@mprgate.mpr.ca)   | - As you can see, I am still alive.
Software Designer                   |   Born that way, you know?
MPR Teltech Ltd.                    | - How romantic, two ships passing out
8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC        |   In the night. - Hawkeye Pierce 
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons)
Subject: Re: Rating of gcc in Unix Review
Organization: Inland Sea
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 13:35:05 GMT

chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:

>In article <1992Jul29.182422.12287@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> smiley@akasha.eng.hou.compaq.com (Colin Smiley) writes:
>>Let's face it, GCC has already proven itself to me...just compile
>>X11R5 with it on a sparc (this is running SunOS4.1.1).  And I don't
>>have to pay $2000 a seat for each copy either.

>I realize that people don't want to see advertising sort of stuff on
>this news group, but the above is incorrect, in that it implies that
>SunPro's compilers cost $2000/seat.  The correct price is $995 (USA$).
>This includes compilers for both 4.1.1 and 5.0 (aka Solaris 1.0 and
>2.0).  Read the advertisements.  (According to the blurb sheet that I
>tracked down, this offer is good until September 30 for compilers
>purchased from SunExpress.  After that, or if you buy from SMCC, I
>cannot say, because I do not know).

Note that the blurb sheets I've seen say the $995.00 price is 70% off.
Presumably this means that on October 1 the price becomes $3316.00.

Steve
-- 
"There's a very fine line  between a groove and a rut.
 Fine line between eccentrics and people who are just plain nuts."
	-- Christine Lavin, "Prisoners Of Their Hairdos"
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: etxmesa@eos.ericsson.se (Michael Salmon)
Subject: Re: What's in a name?
Reply-To: etxmesa@eos.ericsson.se (Michael Salmon)
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:24:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.224350.511@morrow.stanford.edu>, paulf@w6yx.Stanford.EDU (Paul Flaherty) writes:
|> 
|> Well, my Reed - Solomon error correcting coder is now out of beta, and the
|> only remaining issue is:
|> 
|> What to call it?
|> 
|> I had originally proposed "rs", in keeping with Unix tradition of short,
|> clipped names.  Critics have replied that this is too short, and that
|> something like "ecc-encode" and "ecc-decode", though that seems to be
|> pretty long and awkward.  As an interim, I'm using "rscode" with flags
|> to indicate the desired operation.

I certainly prefer rs to the alternatives but unfortunately that has an
unpleasant association with a biproduct of a small rodent, my first
thought was resol. However I agree with the previous respondentant,
call it what you like.

-- 

Michael Salmon

#include	<standard.disclaimer>
#include	<witty.saying>
#include	<fancy.pseudo.graphics>

Ericsson Telecom AB
Stockholm
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: What is LPF position on AT&T v. BSDI?
Date: 24 Jul 1992 23:18:30 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <1992Jul24.020023.10999@algor2.algorists.com> jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler) writes:
>The AT&T argument goes like this:

>1)  You (BSDI) claim you are distributing UNIX.
>2)  This is false, so you must stop claiming it.
>3)  And, since you are distributing UNIX, you must license it from us.

>I think the lawyers call this arguing in the alternative.  One argues
>two mutually exclusive points of view, under both of which your client
>prevails.  That way, whatever the court decides, you win.

As I understand it, you are entirely correct.  I am told that one case
in which lawyers failed to "argue in the alternative" was the Pennzoil
vs Texaco case.  As it was described to me, Pennzoil argued that they
had been harmed by Texaco, and that the harm was large
($3,000,000,000, roughly).  Texaco argued that they had not harmed
Pennzoil, but did not dispute the figure provided by Pennzoil.

The judge decided that Texaco had harmed Pennzoil, and (lacking any
other estimate) used Pennzoil's figure for the dollar value.  This
apparently also made winning an appeal much less likely, because there
was no obvious predjudice on the part of the judge (he took the only
estimate that he had -- Texaco must have agreed with it, or they would
have argued that point, too, right?)

Perhaps this makes the actions of AT&T lawyers look slightly more
rational.

David Chase
Sun
From: etxmesa@eos.ericsson.se (Michael Salmon)
Subject: Re: Rating of gcc in Unix Review
Reply-To: etxmesa@eos.ericsson.se (Michael Salmon)
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:53:01 GMT

In article <29JUL199218375075@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov>, 
dc@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Cottingham) writes:
|> I don't regularly read the Unix Review, but my impression from the odd
|> issue I have read is that it, like many computing periodicals, is
|> targeted at the computer illiterate.  Given that, the approach is not
|> so strange.  I think a typical CI would find it excessively challenging
|> to compile the compiler or to figure out how to read texinfo documentation.
|> For them, I think GCC as it comes off of prep is not a good choice.
|> After all, the FSF was never intended as a hand-holding organization.
|> AS someone else already pointed out, a GCC distribution from Cygnus
|> would have been a better choice.

I built gcc 2.1 on a Sun3 from scratch, I printed out the INSTALL
document, read it carefully, followed it step by step and I had no
problems. I have never tried with 1.x so I can't comment but I think
that a barely literate user could install 2.x without too much trouble.
In fact most of the FSF products are boringly simple to install these
days (emacs and epoch not included).

-- 

Michael Salmon

#include	<standard.disclaimer>
#include	<witty.saying>
#include	<fancy.pseudo.graphics>

Ericsson Telecom AB
Stockholm
From: bson@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Jan Brittenson)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU finger
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:56:54 GMT
	<BrqB4M.KpH@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
	<Brspxt.19o@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
	<1992Jul23.024523.3091@reed.edu>
Organization: nil

In article <1992Jul23.024523.3091@reed.edu> nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:

 > My impression is that GNU finger is dead.

   GNU finger is alive. Version 1.3 will be announced as soon as I've
completed some minor work on it - mostly things related to
compatibility, configuration and installation. Meanwhile, stay away
from 1.0. 1.1 and 1.2 were never made publicly available, so don't
look for them on prep.ai.mit.edu or elsewhere (just to answer the
obvious question).

--
						-- Jan Brittenson
						   bson@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler)
Subject: What is LPF position on AT&T v. BSDI?
Reply-To: jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler)
Organization: Algorists, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 02:00:23 GMT

The AT&T suit against BSDI has (as might be expected) generated
considerable discussion on comp.unix.bsd.  A lot of alternatives have
been tossed back and forth.  I have just posted the suggestion that
all concerned show their concern by joining the League for Programming
Freedom.

I am somewhat handicapped here in that, while a proud member of the
LPF, I to no degree speak for it.  I assume that as we speak it is
studying the suit and will come out with a position.

Specific questions:

1) I assume the LPF has no opinion on the matter of the status of the
trademark on the term "UNIX".  Is this right?

2) I assume the LPF has no opinion on the matter of whether BSDI can
use 800-ITS-UNIX as its phone number.  Is this right?

3) From reading the legal docs, AT&T, while not alleging any trade
secret, copyright or patent rights in BSDI's software, leaves open the
possibility of expanding the suit to allege such.  I assume that if
they "clarify" their position to indicate they do not intend to assert
such rights, instead restricting themselves to trademark and false
advertizing issues, untainted by other intellectual property issues, LPF
will take no position on the matter of AT&T v. BSDI.  Is that correct?

As I read the legal docs, they are a bit strange.  AT&T, as I said
above, does not allege any property rights in the software, but
demands the court grant it injunctive relief for such rights anyway.
(You really have to download the originals and read them yourself to
believe it, I think.)

The AT&T argument goes like this:

1)  You (BSDI) claim you are distributing UNIX.
2)  This is false, so you must stop claiming it.
3)  And, since you are distributing UNIX, you must license it from us.

I think the lawyers call this arguing in the alternative.  One argues
two mutually exclusive points of view, under both of which your client
prevails.  That way, whatever the court decides, you win.

If only we could program computers in the alternative!
-- 

Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc.
jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey
137 E Fremont AVE #122, Sunnyvale CA 94087
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: WANTED: Info about GNU (for article
Date: 23 Jul 92 02:02:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:9207230203.AA04103@tba.msi.corne:-490045629:000:1576
Nf-From: math.cornell.edu!harelb    Jul 22 19:02:00 1992


From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: WANTED: Info about GNU (for article)

Preferably a more up to date version of:

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
			   GNU'S NOT UNIX

		 Conducted by David Betz and Jon Edwards

	      Richard Stallman discusses his public-domain
		    UNIX-compatible software system
			   with BYTE editors
			      (July 1986)
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Please do NOT sent me another huge gnu-list mailing with the Manifesto
(useful; I already have it) and other (far less useful) things that
usually come with it.

This would be for a section or side-bar about the FSF for _Electronic
Activism: Part II_ (No one has yet decided to publish _Part I_ as is,
but recently a major (progressive) publication has informed me that
they have forwarded it to a freelancer writing an article about the
Nets for them.)

The publicity for MAP (misc.activism.progerssive which I co-moderate)
and IGC (PeaceNet and EcoNet) among other things which I hope will
come out of Part I, FSF deserves some of in Part II. Something else
useful which I already have which I recently captured from this
newsgroup (not a regular reader of, though) is a list of Q and A about
what "copyleft" is in response to complaining some some that (if I
understood them) they don't like copyleft since it doesn't let them do
*everything* (like rip other people off in the spirit of capitalism,
mother, and apple pie?)

Please email responses to harelb@math.cornell.edu.

Thank you in advance.

Harel
From: gram@aim1.aztec.co.za (Graham Wheeler)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Rating of gcc in Unix Review
Keywords: Unix Review C Compiler test rate evaluate gcc GNU 1.40 2.0
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:30:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: aim1.gram.712506635
Organization: Aztec Information Management

jonathan@chpc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) writes:

>Note that Unix Review tested gcc 1.40, *not* the new gcc 2.0.

Whoops - sorry if this is old news to everyone else in the group, but when
did gcc 2.0 come out, and what is so different to finally warrant a new major
version number? This sounds exciting! Is there a new DJGPP as well?

-- 
Graham Wheeler                     | "That which is weak conquers the strong,
Software Systems Engineer/Student  | that which is soft conquers the hard."
Aztec Information Management/UCT   | 		Lao Tzu - Tao Te Ching Ch. 78
gram@aim1.aztec.co.za / gram@cs.uct.ac.za
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Geez you guys can WHINGE!!!
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 11:09:40 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
> In article <1992Jul14.003706.8094@microsoft.com> jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adc
> >Clearly spoken from one who has never tried Microsoft's C7 compiler.
> 
> Last I knew, it wasn't available to the public.  If this is changed, then
> it's a valid comparison.  If not, it's vaporware.

It is available to the public.  We use it at Mantis.  The optimizer's still a
bit flakey, though.  The documentation's a big improvement (with the emphasis
on BIG).


mathew
[ Not so much technical support as surgical support required... ]

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Rating of gcc in Unix Review
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:56:42 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

From the keyboard of mcvey@mpr.ca (Iain McVey):
:>Really strange, their approach with the testing.
:Did they compare prices?
:Not much competition for gcc there...

What about performance????

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
Lockwood's Long Shot:
        The chances of getting eaten up by a lion on Main Street aren't
        one in a million, but once would be enough.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: mskuhn@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Markus Kuhn)
Subject: Re: GNU finger
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen, Germany
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 07:50:45 GMT

jbryans@beach.csulb.edu (Jack Bryans) writes:

>If your network has mixed endianity, you may not want it.  Its protocol
>assumes that the hardware representation of numbers is the same on all of
>your hosts.

Then it is definitely NOT a protocol (which by definition is always an
exactly specified format and not something like 'send the bytes of this struct
on the line'). :-)

Markus

-- 
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science student -=-=- University of Erlangen, Germany
Internet: mskuhn@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de  |  X.500 entry available
------------------ ISO?  Nicht immer. Aber immer fter! -------------------
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: WANTED: Info about GNU (for article
Date: 23 Jul 92 02:15:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:9207230203.AA04103@tba.msi.corne:-490045629:9207230215.AA04125@tba.msi.corne:-1522030016:000:1322
Nf-From: math.cornell.edu!harelb    Jul 22 19:15:00 1992


From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: RE: WANTED: Info about GNU (for article)

How to get a copy of my _Electronic Activism: Part I_ by anonymus ftp.

Usual blurb about copyright, but free to distribute so long as it's
unaltered, attributed, and you don't charge people, applies.

Harel

##################################################################

tba> ftp pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Connected to pencil.cs.missouri.edu.
220 pencil FTP server (SunOS 4.1) ready.
Name (pencil.cs.missouri.edu:harelb): anonymous
331 Guest login ok, send ident as password.
Password:harel

230 Guest login ok, access restrictions apply.
ftp> cd LOOKEE_HERE/map         [this takes you info something like
250 CWD command successful.     [/usr/users/ftp/pub/map --Harel

ftp> binary
200 Type set to I.
ftp> dir *dvi*
200 PORT command successful.
150 ASCII data connection for /bin/ls (128.84.234.30,1853) (0 bytes).
-rw-r--r--  1 12       staff       41105 Mar 25 03:27 electronic.activism-1.dvi.Z
226 ASCII Transfer complete.
remote: *dvi*
83 bytes received in 0.22 seconds (0.38 Kbytes/s)
ftp> get electronic.activism-1.dvi.Z


##################################################################

Then do "uncompress electronic.activism-1.dvi.Z"
and then "lpr -d electronic.activism-1.dvi"
for 20 fully typeset pages.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: ehmeier@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Erich Meier)
Subject: Re: GNU finger
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:05:52 GMT

mskuhn@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Markus Kuhn) writes:

>jbryans@beach.csulb.edu (Jack Bryans) writes:

>>If your network has mixed endianity, you may not want it.  Its protocol
>>assumes that the hardware representation of numbers is the same on all of
>>your hosts.

>Then it is definitely NOT a protocol (which by definition is always an
>exactly specified format and not something like 'send the bytes of this struct
>on the line'). :-)

No, it's no protocol. GNU finger sends binary structures over the net, which
MUST fail on different endians on the net.
Therefore I implemented the cfinger-"protocol" on top of Sun's RPC mechanism.
That makes finger much more reliable and faster, too.
I also fixed a few bugs and made extentions to GNU finger.
For coordinating my changes with the GNU finger developers, I tried to communi-
cate with the author and failed. So maybe I'll release my own version.

If you're interested in my version, drop me a line.

Greetings,
Erich
---
Erich Meier	          	e-mail: ehmeier@informatik.uni-erlangen.de
  "Sagt mal, muesst Ihr das am Tag machen?" - unbekannter CIP-Benutzer
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss