HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: donp@agora.uucp (Don Park)
Subject: more scsi support?
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 02:52:18 GMT

Are any drivers in the works to support more scsi controllers
than just the adaptec? 

If so, please mail me as to where I might find onne for a DTC3280A
controller. I would love to be able to run 386bsd.

Don
-- 
Don Park						donp@agora.rain.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler)
Subject: Best Reaction to AT&T Suit == Join LPF
Reply-To: jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler)
Organization: Algorists, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 01:39:57 GMT

I should add IMHO to the above, but I like to keep subject lines
short.  :-) You can contact the League for Programming Freedom as
shown below.  I believe the LPF is the best instrument for reacting to
these situations.  I am proud to be a member.  Joining the LPF now
would 1) send a message; 2) not commit us prematurely to anything; 3)
strengthen us against future similar threats.

I have down-loaded the legal docs from uunet and the matter looks
complex.  Some have suggested we rush out and boycott AT&T.  I would
suggest the following considerations.

1) AT&T's hints of wide ranging legal action are so far just that --
strong hints.  Perhaps our response should be proportional.

2) Issues central to AT&T v. BSDI are not so central to our concerns.
For example, the question of whether an 800-ITS-UNIX number violates
AT&T's trademark is one which, if the suit were limited to it, I would
be glad to leave up to the courts.  Therefore:

3) Before engaging in a boycott or any other action, we should clarify
exactly what our grievance is, and in what respect (if any) we object
to the AT&T suit.

Again, I think the LPF is the best way to do this.

Here follows contact information for LPF from uunet!~/doc/lpf/lpf.join.Z:

> If you have any questions, please write to the League, phone
> (617) 243-4091, or send Internet mail to league@prep.ai.mit.edu.
>		       Jack Larsen, President
> Jack Larsen can be contacted at (708) 698-1160; Fax (708) 698-6221.
> To join, please send a check and the following information [ questionnaire
> ommitted for space -- JK ] to:
>
>    League for Programming Freedom
>    1 Kendall Square #143
>    P.O.Box 9171
>    Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
-- 

Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc.
jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey
137 E Fremont AVE #122, Sunnyvale CA 94087
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: terry@npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert)
Subject: Re: I wonder, did AT&T backstab BSDI?
Keywords: AT&T speculation lawsuit BSDI
Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:49:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.201919.15968@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.174437.18606@gateway.novell.com> terry@thisbe.npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) writes:
>>Things AT&T owes to Berkeley:
>>2)	VFS
>>3)	Memory management strategies
>
>That's funny, I could have sworn that these actually came from SunOS.
>Considering that 4.4ish is the first BSD system to have vnodes, and a decent
>memory-management scheme, I don't see how SysVr4 (which has been out for a
>couple of years now) could have gotten it from 4.4...

One can also argue that VFS is an independant developement of AT&T on the
basis of the file system switch constituting "prior art" in the neighborhood,
and that Sun thus got it from AT&T.  This would be wrong, but one could
certainly argue it.

Didn't virtual memory for UNIX systems come from System 3 work at UCB on
the old PDP boxes?  I seem to remember swapping as a requirement because
of memory limitations AT&T never had to consider, given their ability to
purchase and use sufficient memory without *needing* swapping.  Things
are invented when they are needed.  If you are talking about modern paged
memormory management alone, then you can probably make a case for Sun; but
the point is that it certainly didn't originate with AT&T.

>>4)	Job control
>
>Other systems had job control long before BSD did.

But not SVR4, which got it's code from Berkeley.

>>5)	csh
>
>I use bash or ksh.  csh has too many problems.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it didn't come from Berkeley.

>>8)	mail/sendmail/smtp
>
>Other systems had smtp before, no?  sendmail isn't that great, and there are
>other systems that deliver mail without the horrible configuration problem
>that sendmail is.  And UNIX had mail *long* before UCB ever started playing
>with unix!

The mail code was based on the intermail code for the old Berknet, which
in turn was derived from work done by Greg Haerr as a student at UCSD.
This system had a seperate reader and poster mechanism, due to project
requirements placed by the cognitive psychologist in charge.


Let's see.  Out of 10 "trade secrets" in use by USL, we have found one
which we can argue started at USL, one which is of questionable, but
undeniably non-AT&T origin, one which came from Berkeley by way of UCSD,
and seven which are undeniably Berkeley in origin (two of which you
personally don't like or had a hard time figuring out).  I would like
to claim a 90% Berkeley, 100% non-AT&T, but will settle for 70% Berkeley,
20% non-AT&T, and 10% contested.

AT&T is still in the red, and this is only what I thought were the top 10,
not a comprehensive list by any means!


					Terry Lambert
					terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com
					terry@icarus.weber.edu
---
Disclaimer:  Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of
my present or previous employers.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: rivers@ponds.uucp (Thomas David Rivers)
Subject: Re: General problems (serial line, spontaneous reboots) (fix)
Keywords: 386bsd serial COM 
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 03:03:39 GMT

Ok, I know it's not good form to follow-up your own postings, but...

I have just discovered that replacing the COM driver with the 
bidirectional one from Chris (cgd@agate.berkely.edu) solved the
problems I was having with screen over a serial line.

Second, I'd like to point out something, and ask the "net-at-large"
for a reasonable explanation.

I copied the GENERICISA configuration file and *removed* the lines
for ethernet devices (since I have none in my machine.)  I then
configured that kernel, and built it; adding the new com driver.

Now, that driver isn't *too* different from the older one, and certainly
without the 3 ethernet drivers, the kernel should be smaller.  But, 
my new kernel is *MUCH* larger.  Here's the sizes:

-rwxr-xr-x    1 root       435539 Jul 21 00:02 386bsd
-rwxr-xr-x    1 root       402301 Jul 14 19:08 386bsd.old

Just to let everyone know...

     - Dave Rivers -
    (rivers@ponds.uucp)
From: lyndon@ampr.ab.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Summary: We don't give a shit; we're The Phone Company
Date: 23 Jul 92 07:15:56 GMT
Organization: Alberta Packet Radio Network

> : This is insanity. Surely this will be thrown out of court.
> Who is going to defend NET/2?

Or better yet, is the Death Star going to sue the Jolitz's too?
From: grog@adagio.UUCP (Greg Lehey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: 386bsd 0.1 - ne2000 problem work-around
Keywords: 386bsd ne2000
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:55:13 GMT
Organization: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany

In article <1992Jul20.162728.8188@gateway.novell.com> terry@thisbe.npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) writes:
>In article <greg.711512526@hibp1.ecse.rpi.edu>, greg@ecse.rpi.edu (Greg) writes:
>|>      After I loaded the source, and deleted enough so that I could actually 
>|> compile something on my 100MB disk, I rebuilt the kernel. I assigned the
>|> ne2000 to use irq2, sacrificing com2. The kernal build was uneventfull except 
>|> that I need to apply the "version patch" posted recently. I restrapped the
>|> ne2000 to irq3 and away we go! It seems to work.
>|> 
>|>     Perhaps someone has some insight into why in can't use the irq2 
>|> configuration.
>
>Most likely, the "do-it-all" card you mentioned has either an IRQ2 -OR-
>one of the higher interrupts.  IRQ2 is the "cascade" interrupt for getting
>things like IRQ15.  Generally, unless the software has a real good idea of
>how the interrupt controller works, it's bad form to use IRQ2.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this. The bus IRQ2 line,
which has been there since the XT days, no longer generates an IRQ2,
since IRQ2 is used for the cascade input of IRQ 8-15. Instead, it is
connected to IRQ9. There is *absolutely* no reason not to use this
interrupt (unless you count the confusion we're talking about). It's
the only one of the 8 higher-level interrupts available to an 8-bit
board.

>I haven't
>had a chance to get into the interrupt controller code yet, but I'll see
>what I can do.  I suggest that anyone else using IRQ2 be discouraged.  The
>same can probably be said of "shared interrupt" devices, like Com1 and Com3
>or Com2 and Com4, or a Com2 and a multiport board in the same box, etc.

The problem with the lack of IRQ lines is exacerbated by the fact that
the standard async board design is brain-damaged: it drives its IRQ
line at all times, thus making sharing almost impossible. Some people
have come up with ideas for fixing them (like what should have been
done: only drive the line when you have something to say).
Unfortunately, this also requires the interrupt code to expect
multiple interrupts. Currently, it doesn't, and since the hardware
prerequisites are absent, I don't see it happening soon.

BTW, I use BSD/386, not 386BSD, and there the com ports are numbered
starting at 0. IBM starts at 1. I would expect (but haven't checked)
that 386BSD would also start at 0.
-- 
Greg Lehey                       | Tel: +49-6637-1488              
LEMIS                            | Fax: +49-6637-1489
Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
*** NOTE ***: Headers are mangled - reply to grog%lemis@Germany.EU.net
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 21:06:54 GMT
Keywords: BSDI AT&T

In article <1992Jul25.014246.11533@klic.rain.com> keithl@klic.rain.com (Keith Lofstrom) writes:
>dennis@nebulus.ca (Dennis S. Breckenridge)  [ and others ] write:
>>Send your $1000.00 to BSDI and get a source license now.
>I just did so.  There are a number of reasons why this is a good idea:

Alternatively, you could grab a copy of 386BSD, use that, and distribute as
many copies as possible to your friends.

Since there is no difference between what BSDI is doing and what the
Jolitzes are doing, other than the fact that BSDI is chargning money, which,
from the standpoint of the suit, is pretty irrelevant, having all those
copies of 386BSD out there, which has been publicly announced and talked
about as much as BSDI's product, without any move on USL's part to stop the
distribution or use, helps BSDI.

That is, because the two are the same, if there is any trade secret or
copyright violation going on, USL would have to go after both, or lose its
ability to protect its "trade secrets" or copyrights.

Then, of course, you could send $1k to the Jolitzes instead of BSDI, and
know that they could use the money a lot more than BSDI could, especially if
USL *does* go after them.

>2)  BSDI could use the money.

BSDI will do fine in the suit without the money, although it is true that
they could always use more money.  Who can't?  The Jolitzes could, as well.
You could also order a copy of Net/2 from CSRG, and *they* can use the money
far more than BSDI can!

>4)  BSDI probably has investors.  

Other than the founderrs, I don't think so.  Kolstad has either stated
outright, or implied heavily, that there are none.  Uhm, "self-financed
company" were the words he used at the first BSDI BOF, I believe.

>Buy a copy for yourself.  Your friends.  Your Mom.  Your Dog.  ;-)

Buy a copy of Net/2 from CSRG instead, and get a copy of 386BSD.  For
yourself.  Your friends.  Your mom.  Your Dog.  ;-)

As much as I dislike the suit between USL and BSDI, I hate seeing it turn
into a bunch of advertisement for BSDI on the net.  The same moral
objectives can be accomplished by helping the Jolitzes, or running the BSD
single-server available from CMU for Mach 3.0, or by merely distributing
copies of the Net/2 tape, and any derivatives thereof, to as many people as
possible.  If you order it from CSRG, include a letter saying that you do
not have a USL or AT&T source license, so that there will be something on
record showing that USL permitted UCB to continue to distribute copies of the
Net/2 tape to people or organizations without such.

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "My psychiatrist says I have a messiah
sef@kithrup.COM  |  complex.  But I forgive him."
-----------------+              -- Jim Carrey
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: veit@du9ds3.uni-duisburg.de (Holger Veit)
Subject: Re: Mtools binaries are bad?
Date: 28 Jul 92 11:07:14 GMT
Reply-To: veit@du9ds3.uni-duisburg.de
Organization: Uni-Duisburg FB9 Datenverarbeitung

In <39901@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com> dec@lazarus.nrtc.northrop.com (Dwight E. Cass) writes:

>With the exception of the mread utility, I have been unable to get the
>mtools binaries to work, as distributed in the /usr/local/bin
>directory after installing the system.  However, the binaries in
>/usr/othersrc/public/mtools-2.0.5/bin work just fine.  Is this a 
>problem with the distribution?

>/dec
>Dwight E. Cass                 dec@nrtc.northrop.com | You are in a
>Automation Sciences Laboratory, Northrop Corporation |   twisty maze of
>One Research Park, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA  90274 | Sendmail rules,
>(310) 544-5393                                       |   all obscure...

create the devices /dev/fd0c, /dev/rfd0c, /dev/fd1c, /dev/rfd1c with
/dev/MAKEDEV.

Holger

-- 
|  |   / Holger Veit             | INTERNET: veit@du9ds3.uni-duisburg.de
|__|  /  University of Duisburg  | BITNET: veit%du9ds3.uni-duisburg.de@UNIDO
|  | /   Dept. of Electr. Eng.   | "No, my programs are not BUGGY, these are
|  |/    Inst. f. Dataprocessing |          just unexpected FEATURES"
From: fmt@mbf.UUCP (Mike Trimberger)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:38:06 GMT
Organization: MAI Systems Corp.

In article <jim.712278251@piggy> jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
>
>More directly, I am not upgrading from Esix 4.0.3a to Esix 4.0.4.
>I don't know how much in the way of licensing USL loses from this,
>but it's probably substantial.
>                            Jim Lick		       

Maybe you could 'upgrade' to SCO 8-).

I myself am using _Coherent_ from Mark Williams Corp.  And the Co where
I work is also looking into it (as soon as they get networking).  Actually
most of our customers could use Coherent as is exists today - and no $'s
go into ATT pockets.  The only problem is that MWC doesn't disclose any
of their source.  But for $99, what do you expect.
-- 
F. Michael Trimberger 					   MAI Systems Corp.
 fmt%mbf.uucp@ics.uci.edu 				   14192 Franklin Ave
or: {ucivax,uunet!ccicpg,sequent}!mbf!fmt   		   Tustin, Ca 92680
[system administrator in training - sink or swim method]   (714) 730-2934
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: shaker@shaker26-ss2.cisco.com (Christopher J. Shaker)
Subject: Re: Boot problems with 386BSD 0.1 release
Organization: cisco Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:03:41 GMT

Terry:

The TinyBSD image booted on my 50 Mhz 486/DX1 once I turned off the
*internal* 486 cache. I have the external secondary cache enabled. Before
that, the floppy spun forever. Unfortunately, it doesn't believe that my DPT
EISA SCSI interface and SCSI disk has a disk attached. I can boot minix 1.3
on this machine, and the WD1003 emulation on the DPT EISA SCSI is supposed
to be quite good.

Chris


In article <BrKJ13.4zA@acsu.buffalo.edu> jones@acsu.buffalo.edu (terry a jones) writes:
Path: morrow.stanford.edu!stanford.edu!rutgers!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu!jones
   From: jones@acsu.buffalo.edu (terry a jones)
   Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
   Date: 18 Jul 92 04:55:51 GMT
   Sender: nntp@acsu.buffalo.edu
   Organization: UB
   Lines: 22
   Nntp-Posting-Host: beatrix.eng.buffalo.edu

	   Well I've run out of ideas trying to get 0.1 to boot on my
   machine.  I've pulled every card out of the box with the exception
   of the video card and that can't be a problem since none of the three
   I tried made any difference.  The Tiny 386BSD floppy boots to the
   point of displaying the 4 line banner and hangs with the floppy still
   spinning along.  From here only hardware reset will reboot the machine,
   <CTRL><ALT>DEL doesn't do the trick.  I have turned off all BIOS shadowing
   and disabled the secondary cache, to no avail.  Specifics on the motherboard
   and configuration:

   Mylex MDI 486-33 Motherboard - Mylex BIOS V6.09, OPTI chipset
   256K External Cache
   8-1Meg SIMMS
   Diamond Speedstar VGA w/1Meg RAM
   Adaptec 1542B SCSI HA

	   Has anyone else been able to boot 0.1 with this motherboard or
   can think of something I've missed?

	   Thanks in advance,
	   Terry Jones			jones@cs.buffalo.edu
From: peter@micromuse.co.uk (Peter Galbavy)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: 386BSD: Anyone using gcc-2.x on 0.1?
Date: 30 Jul 92 09:36:16 GMT
Organization: MicroMuse Limited, London, England.

soward@slow.inslab.uky.edu (John Soward) writes:

>I tried to compile it (gcc2.2.2) but ran into a snag...then I found the  
>binaries and patches on sonata.cc.purdue.edu...these seem to work...
>I am currently trying to re-compile the Kernel with it...A few cahnges need to  
>be made it looks like...I am currently stuck on src/i386/isa/npx.c:129
>with: " impossible register constraint in `asm' " but I'm sure it's just some  
>slight change from 1.39...


Changes to kernel code (from memory, I am at work - BSD system at home):

1   Change in ../../i386/*/npx.c the lines it comlains about to use "m"
    instead of "g" - you will see what I mean when you look at it.

2   Errors also include the warning about incompatible declarations (whatever)
    of strlen() in ../../sys/systm.h (comment it out - works ok).

    ../../i386/??/math_emulate.c line 614 need changing from:

	tmp = & (long)REG(...)

    to

	tmp = & REG(...)

    as casting makes gcc-2.2.2 & operator barf (not too suprising really).

3   ../../i386/??/pccons.c needs "=" signs added to array declarations. Try
    compiling it and you will see the line numbers. Also there are a couple
    of comments like "?* NNN */" the need the "?" changed to "/" (this may
    be bit rot :-)

What else ? I can't remember...

*but* I have rebuilt the kernel using gcc-2.2.2 and it is *bigger* binary
wise than the one built using 1.39, and of course doesn't work :-(

gcc-2.2.2 carries around lots of redundent c++ stuff, and makes a call
to ___main (__main in libgcc2.c) which does c++ stuff. I have tried using
-fno-builtin to no avail. When I get the portable up and running (soon,
please :-) I will be able to investigate further, by which time the patches
should be out :-) :-)

Sigh. One day.
-- 
Peter Galbavy
Tech Support, Micromuse Ltd
Phone: +44 71 352 7774		E-Mail: P.Galbavy@micromuse.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: mwalker@wc.novell.com (Mel Walker)
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI
Organization: Novell, Inc. - Walnut Creek
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:13:32 GMT

In article <118@netwrk.UUCP> rt@MAGEC.COM (P.A. Marshall  x8330) writes:
>
>>vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>>> [If AT&T is that worried about everyone having a license, why haven't they
>>> gotten uunet/dec/etc. to pull the Net-2 sources out of the public archives?]
>>
>>i'm sure that if they win their court case, they will try very hard to do that
>
>and
>
>>eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul21.104627.3353@mel.dit.csiro.au>
>>	smart@wanda.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Robert Smart) writes:
>>
>>: This is insanity. Surely this will be thrown out of court.
>>Who is going to defend NET/2?
>
>
>In the past some postings to this newsgroup have been critical of the
>approach BSDI has taken with BSD.  IMHO, now is the time to put all
>these feelings aside and stand by BSDI.  If BSDI goes down we stand
>to lose our access to a 'free' BSD (possibly to any free Un*x).
>In a posting by Mike MacKenzie (mm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu) it was
>suggested that we might change our phone service from AT&T to another
>carrier, IMO a fine idea, but let's make sure AT&T gets the word on
>why users are switching (Ideas anyone?).

Write them a letter. Or give them a call. Since their a phone company,
you should probably use the mail. <g>

>  Now here I go, sticking my butt into the line of fire.  Many a
>business has gone under fighting legal battles that eat up both time
>and money.  It is to our advantage to help (if possible) BSDI win this
>battle--  If BSDI wins, this silly question of 'have you ever seen a
>fragment of AT&T code' will be over, moot, done.  However if AT&T wins
>then the same question can be asked of any other free Un*x, and there is
>only one place that this can end... *no* free Un*x.  There is one way we
>can help BSDI in this battle with the Death Star, money, buy a copy of 
>BSD from BSDI.  If you were thinking of doing it some day, if you were
>going to talk the boss into getting a copy, what ever, do it now.  I
>have placed my money were I think my interest in 'free' Un*x can best be
>served in this battle and placed my order (1.800.800.4BSD) for a copy.
>
>Keep Unix Free, or Wish You Had.
>
>I am not connected in any way with or have any interest in BSDI.
>-- 
>Al Marshall
>rt@magec.com					Standard Disclaimer...
>netwrk!rt


--
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
+ Mel Walker                   | ******** Dave Barry for President ********* +
+ mwalker@optics.wc.novell.com | "He may be a Homicidal Axe Murderer, but at +
+                              |      least he won't raise your taxes!"      +
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: scott_silverstein@yccatsmtp.ycc.yale.edu (Scot Silverstein M.D.)
Subject: 386BSD bugs?
Followup-To: comp.unix.bsd
Organization: Yale University, Center for Medical Informatics
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:39:14 GMT

From my reading here, it seems 386BSD 0.1 is robust.  That's almost
too good to be true.  What major bugs have been found so far in 0.1?
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Organization: The World
	<1992Jul22.163407.10823@Warren.MENTORG.COM> <14101@ksr.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 21:51:47 GMT


From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
>AT&T probably spends more money on coffee for employees than BSDI will ever
>handle.  Assuming they aren't squished like a bug by AT&T's legal staff.

First, it's USL doing the suing. I'm not sure exactly what difference
that makes but I suspect it makes at least some difference. I do
think, however, sending any message to AT&T will be helpful.

Does anyone have a list of USL shareholders? I believe Novell is a
large shareholder in USL. May as well get the targets right, because
ultimately all this activity by USL has to please their shareholders,
especially the big ones.

Second, the interesting thing is that this lawsuit is not being
handled by staff attorneys, but rather they've hired outside guns.

I believe this is one of the bad problems with this suit. In effect,
USL has handed the "war" over to the "defense contractors", so what
motivation is there but to make it as expensive and bloody as
possible? Schmucks.

The optimistic side of me says that some judge will not miss all this
idiocy. I hope they award BSDI about a gazillion dollars just to teach
USL a lesson about this sort of scumbucket bullying. That's the
downside risk of being a wealthy bully idiot, juries don't feel so bad
about awarding kings' ransoms in damages out of deep pockets.


--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd