HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Conrad_Geiger@NeXT.COM (Conrad Geiger - Manager, International NeXT User Groups)
Subject: RightBrain Ships PasteUp (Page Layout) for NeXTSTEP
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:21:31 GMT

RightBrain Ships PasteUp (Page Layout) for NeXTSTEP

PALO ALTO, CA, USA October 27, 1992 - Today RightBrain Software began
shipping PasteUp, the first page layout program completely built from 
the ground up with object oriented technology and Display Postscript. 

PasteUp is a full-featured design and layout package providing
sophisticated text-handling, drawing tools, and layout features.
PasteUp supports the drag-and-drop metaphor for colors, imported
files, graphic styles, and text styles. Display PostScript allows
page editing at output resolution and provides on screen previews of
color separated film. PasteUp has built-in spell checking and
hyphenation in 9 languages, full text runaround, left and right
master pages, page numbering, search and replace for colors as well
as text, arbitrary rotation and skewing of all objects including
text, grouping, locking, align and distribute, and a host of other
features. PasteUp is intended for flexible page design and documents
in the 1-to-100-page range, although its drawing tools,
word-processing features, and ease of use make it appropriate for all
short document needs.

"PasteUp 1.0 has all the features you'd expect of an
industrial-strength publishing application, but is much faster and
easier to use," said Glenn Reid, president and founder of RightBrain
Software. "We've also added some sophisticated features like
automatic drop shadows for any object, a thumbnail page navigator, an
arrowhead editor that lets you customize the shapes of arrowheads,
and copy/paste of graphic attributes."

PasteUp also has automatic "smart punctuation" that will replace
straight quotes with typographic quotes, double hyphens with
emdashes, insert fi and fl ligatures, and even transpose the period
inside double quotes at the end of a quotation. Smart punctuation
works with text import as well as during typing, which greatly
simplifies the process of importing text from other sources without
having to search and replace all the quotes and ligature

PasteUp has a suggested retail price of $795 and is available through
NeXT dealers, NeXT international distributors and NeXTconnection.
Contact RightBrain Software for more information or the location of
the PasteUp reseller nearest you.

U.S. PHONE:     1-800-472-7246
INTERNATIONAL:  +1  415-326-2974
FAX:            +1  415-326-2977
EMAIL:          info@rightbrain.com

RightBrain Software was founded in 1990 by Glenn C. Reid to provide
full-featured publishing solutions on the NeXT computer platform.
RightBrain is headquartered in Palo Alto, California and is privately
held.
Newsgroups: comp.newprod
From: jcurran@nic.near.net (John Curran)
Subject: NEARnet Announces Commercial Routing Option
Followup-To: poster
Organization: NEARnet, Cambridge, MA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:22:53 GMT

	     NEARnet Announces Commercial Routing Option

Cambridge, MA -- The New England Academic and Research Network
(NEARnet) is pleased to announce a new commercial routing option for
its members.  NEARnet members who select this option may now pursue
business activities such as sales, technical support, software
distribution and remote system maintenance with other sites in the
commercial Internet.

NEARnet has signed agreements with ANS CO+RE Systems and the
Commercial Internet Exchange (CIX) that make it possible for NEARnet
to offer the new commercial routing option.  NEARnet was instrumental
in bringing ANS and the CIX into an agreement to interconnect their
networks, thus creating a sound mechanism by which network service
providers can offer their members access to the commercial Internet.

NEARnet's Commercial Routing Option will be available in early
November, once the ANS/CIX interconnection is operational.
Organizations using the Commercial Routing Option will benefit from
NEARnet's high-speed backbone, dependable network operations, and
comprehensive support services.  This option provides NEARnet members
with the most extensive commercial access available today.

For more information, send email to "nearnet-join@nic.near.net" or
call (617) 873-8730.  NEARnet is the premier provider of Internet
services to New England's networking community.

For more information:

John Curran
NEARnet Staff
(617) 873-8730
Newsgroups: comp.newprod
From: ttsource@halcyon.com (Loren E. Johnson)
Subject: !! TRUEType Fonts !!
Followup-To: poster
Keywords: fonts truetype windows shareware
Organization: The True Type Source
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:24:08 GMT

                The TRUE Type Source
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        Over 170 Shareware True Type Fonts
       For Us With Microsoft Windows v3.1 -- ONLY $45

For a complete catalog please send your mailing address to:
               TTSOURCE@halcyon.com
Newsgroups: comp.newprod
From: kingsley@world.std.com (Lorne J Kingsley)
Subject: Announcing The Mac Report, a new Mac newsletter.
Followup-To: poster
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:24:29 GMT

	A new Macintosh newsletter has just begun publication.

The Mac Report, the Independent Voice of the Macintosh Enthusiast
is a new monthly publication written for people who use the Macintosh
line of personal computers at work, home or for play.

This is not the normal Mac newsletter that narrowly focuses on one
particular technology, to the exclusion of everything else. Nor are we
like the slick 4-color rags that are more interested in the hardware and
software, than what to *do* with all the cool Mac stuff in which you've
invested your hard earned dollars.

No, The Mac Report is different. Sure, we'll report on the latest hardware
and software, but from the point of view of a person that would actually
*use* the product in question. And we will cover everything Macintosh,
from games to local area networks and everything in between, and report on
it from the *users* point of view. 



       So what can you expect to read about in The Mac Report?

In our Premiere Issue, we report on:

     -  The new Macintosh models
     -  An in-depth review of Morph, an amazing new graphics application
     -  MacEKG, a Macintosh diagnostic software tool
     -  Discuss QuickTime, and why it's so important to the future of     
           Macintosh
     -  Review Newton from the developer's perspective
     -  Warn you of special "deals" that aren't really deals at all
     -  And much, much more.

In future issues look for more software and hardware reviews, tutorials,
in-depth reports on new Macs, and all kinds of useful info. If it's
important to the Macintosh user, The Mac Report will cover it.

In addition to stimulating writing, The Mac Report is visually
sophisticated, unlike its Times/Helvetica and occasional screenshot
brethren.


So how do you get it? Contact me, the Editor of The Mac Report, *at the
address below*, with your complete mailing address and desire to
subscribe. We will send you, free, the Premiere Issue, and an invoice for
a one-year subscription (12 more monthly issues - 13 issues in total). If
after reading the Premiere Issue you decide The Mac Report is not for you,
simply return the invoice marked "Cancel," and keep the Premiere Issue
with my compliments. You simply can't lose.

If you subscribe to The Mac Report before December 15, 1992, you will be
rewarded with Charter Subscriber status, which guarantees you the lowest
possible subscription rate, currently $36 (requests honored from outside
the USA, but the rate will be slightly higher due to increased postage
costs) for 12 monthly issues. If at anytime you are dissatisfied with The
Mac Report, simply contact us and you will receive a prompt refund for all
unmailed issues.

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Lorne J. Kingsley
Editor, The Mac Report

Respond to address: macreport@aol.com

Macintosh is a registered trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.newprod
From: jkovacs@qualix.com (Jean Kovacs)
Subject: ADOBE TRANSCRIPT 4.0 
Followup-To: poster
Keywords: transcript, postscript
Organization: QUALiX Group, Inc.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:23:49 GMT

     Get total control of your PostScript printers, 
       with new TransScript software from Adobe!


	   Adobe Announces TranScript 4.0


Adobe Systems has announced TranScript Version 4.0
software, a suite of programs that convert files into
PostScript language files and enables UNIX applications
to communicate with PostScript output devices.

TranScript 4.0 features:

	o  Communicates with any PostScript printer on
	   the network

	o  Works with hundreds of UNIX applications, such
	   as Scribe, TeX, and FrameMaker

	o  Converts non-PostScript language files (such as
	   Tek 4014, plot, troff, ntroff, and ASCII) into
	   PostScript language files -- and specify options
	   such as font selection and size/page orientation.

	o  Motif graphical user interface (command line
	   interface is still functional)  (NEW!)

	o  Direct support for Ethernet and parallel printers (NEW!)

	o  Supports PostScript fax printers (NEW!)

	o  Includes filters necessary to print job banner pages, 
           do page accounting and more.

ARE YOU CURRENTLY USING TRANSCRIPT?
----------------------------------
Adobe TranScript used to be bundled with Sun's Laserprinters.
You may be using an older version of the product -- and missing
out on some of the new capabilities!

To tell if you're currently using TranScript to talk to
your printers type:

% enscript

If you get a response that shows you how to use the enscript
command, you have TranScript loaded and should call us to
learn about new features in Version 4.0.

If you get the message "Command not found." TranScript is
not loaded on your system. 

PRICING:
-------

	SPARC single-user binary . . . . . . .	 $495
	Single CPU Source. . . . . . . . . . . $1,795
	Site-wide Source . . . . . . . . . . . $2,950

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
--------------------------
Qualix is the exclusive distributor for the UNIX version of
Adobe TranScript. For more information on this or any of our
other products, call us at 1-800-245-UNIX -- or send e-mail
to info@qualix.com.
	
GETTING TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION VIA THE QUALIX MAIL SERVER:
---------------------------------------------------------
Qualix Group maintains a mailserver with information files
and demo versions of products. If you'd like more information
on Adobe TranScript, send an e-mail to qfacts@qualix.com
(or uunet!qualix!qfacts) and include the following lines:

send transcript.info

End the message with your name/company name/phone or fax
number.

The TranScript information will automatically be sent
to you.

ORDERING INFORMATION:
--------------------
QUALiX GROUP, INC.
1900 So. Norfolk Street, #224
San Mateo, CA 94403

Ordering by phone: 1-800-245-UNIX
	           415-572-0200

Ordering by fax:   1-800-245-3468
	           415-572-1300

Ordering by e-mail:  info@qualix.com

GUARANTEE: We offer a 30-day money-back guarantee, so if
	   you're not fully satisfied, we'll refund your money!
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: dichter@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Carl Dichter)
Subject: Requirements Traceability Tools
Organization: SPS
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:01:04 GMT

I'm still working on that article about Testing.

Is anyone aware of tools to help automate requirements tracing?

There are facilities for this in IDE's StP and CDE that work with 
Centerline's ObjectCenter/CodeCenter.

Also, there are provisions for trace-ability in the suite of tools developed at MCC
(used to be called "Desire").

Can anyone think of others?

I'm not reviewing these tools, just mentioning them as tools that can help
in testing.

Respond by email, or post if you want to start a discussion thread.

----------------------
Carl R. Dichter               "iwannanugui"
Motorola ASIC Division
email: dichter@chdasic.sps.mot.com
/*
** "People who never make mistakes work for people who dare to."
*/
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Wanted: experiences creating test suites.
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:16:58 EST

In article <6886@grus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) writes:
> In article <1992Nov3.150212.9247@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>>
>>Nice questions.  Lemme say it again.  Good questions.  Can't answer them.
>>Why?  I work in a commercial environment.  Result?  Might be biased because of
>>this selection process.
> I see this response a lot.  And I agree with you, George, that this
> biases some research and prevents some lines of investigation.
> Many companies (at least the legal dept.) are unwilling to admit that
> their software *ever* had bugs, let alone had bugs when it was
> shipped.
> What change would be necessary to permit questions on software faults
> and software testing to be answered by those in a commercial setting?

Hmm......Let's talk about one approach.  Write to company x, asking them to
fill out a confidential questionairre with bug-related information that will be
sanitized before release to the world.  It can be done.  Look at the SEI
confidentiality approach to assessment information.  

Second, the legal eagles are out just waiting for software bug admission, so
that the lawsuits can start.  Somehow, we have to make the world understand
that software like anything else is not risk free, no matter how hard we try to
make it so.  

I need to think about this some more, because in the larger context I think
that you are asking how we need to understand our own limitations, and upon
doing so, advertise and sell software for what it is, not what people think it
to be.

George Kambic
sd
From: jb7m+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. R. Bennett)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Code Coverage tools for the kernel
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:30:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.weyJd=200WAjIVN756
	<1992Nov04.201837.14950@Veritas.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
> >So, by "decent C coverage tool", I was assuming one that used an
> >in-core table written out at the end of program execution.  Since the
> >I/O is done in one place, it should be easy to tailor.  For example,
> >when using GCT on the kernel, you just reach in through /dev/kmem and
> >read the table.
> 
> This is fine from a coverage point of view, but it is a major security 
> problem.  If the person running the tests (which hopefully includes 
> lots of development and QA engineers, not to mention some pseudo-real
> users) can read /dev/kmem, then those people can steal passwords, 
> including the root password.

in the context described, the person is testing the KERNAL, if you could
compile the kernal, and install the kernal, and run the kernal, then it
dont realy mater that you might be able to get the root password, beacuse
you already have the root password.

jon
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: hasker@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Hasker)
Subject: Re: Will we keep ignoring this productivity issue?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:47:33 GMT

rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:

>>...However, it is a fairly-well-established rule of thumb that
>>very good programmers can be an order of magnitude or more productive than
>>the average and do a good job...
>
>How many software businesses can really afford to ignore such large factors
>in development cost?  Can they really afford (say) the difference between
>$150,000 and $3 million in development cost?

On what sorts of projects?  While there might be a difference for small
projects, it certainly wouldn't be clear that there would be a
difference for large projects.  Besides, there might not be enough
"very good" people in your neighborhood to do a large project.  So you
get the job done with the people on hand.  (And don't most companies
promote the successful developers to management where they can't do
this sort of work?)

Rob
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: georgerj@rtsg.mot.com (Richard J. George)
Subject: Re: Software Factory (was: Re: Do Software Engineers Actualy Do So Badly?)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:02:44 GMT

claird@litwin.com (Cameron Laird) writes:

>Successful software organizations of the year
>2000, in my estimation, will not be those that
>regard applications problems as solved by "coding
>up a program"--the tradition in which most of us
>grew up--or even by design, in its lower-level
>senses.  They will, as one contributor recently
>complained, have a "de-skilling" attitude.  They
>will expect their employees to show facility at
>combining standard components, at translating
>high-level specifications into solutions, and at
>carrying out their business within a *measured*
>workplace.

I disagree with the assumption that the role of the software engineer
will be de-skilled in years to come.  From looking at tools which are
available now (ilogix for example), I see the skill moving further
up the lifecycle.  More pride will be placed in getting a complete
set of requirements, and producing a design that satisfies those 
requirements.

Coding itself is (should be) cranking the handle.  It is the bricks
and mortar of the architect - and how many bridge building engineers
get their hands dirty?

Mr Laird talks about car manufacturing.  The car designers work very 
much as they did thirty years ago - but with computers instead of drawing
boards and slide rules.  Yes, they do use standard components, but so do
we.  An example of that is the greenleaf libraries for comms.

What we lack is a accepted 'front end' to requirement capture and design.
CASE tools have attempted to solve this, but none have all the features
that we crave for.  If a front end is accepted by the industry, the
library producers can produce representations of their products to included
by the software engineers in their designs - similar to how hardware 
engineers work with simulation packages.

This is not a magic bullet - just one more device that would help to raise
the quality of software.

Regards, Richard


>-- 
>Cameron Laird		+1 713 996 8546

>claird@litwin.com
>claird@Neosoft.com
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Terminal vs. workstations productivity
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:43:26 GMT
	<1992Nov6.075017.22154@informatik.uni-bremen.de>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
In-reply-to: mfr@Informatik.Uni-Bremen.DE.'s message of 6 Nov 92 07:50:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.075017.22154@informatik.uni-bremen.de> mfr@Informatik.Uni-Bremen.DE. (Michael Froehlich) writes:
   In article 92Nov3232420@hippo.cs.man.ac.uk, bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan) writes:
   >In article <1992Oct30.000254.15144@den.mmc.com> richard@crowded-house.den.mmc.com (Richard Armstrong) writes:
     [ would be much more productive if had an X-terminal ]
   [ maybe, but a two windows as provided by Emacs would have sufficed ]

   Yes, of course. That's a great solution.
   I know a lot of people tieing their shoe-laces with a pair of pincers :-)

I thought the usual complaint was that (GNU) Emacs was much to large
and so a better analogy would be tying your shoelaces with a robot arm
hooked up to some virtual reality kit.

I put the ":-)" on my original message because I know that some people
can get very agitated about it.  However, the suggestion is serious.
Of course, it makes no sense if you _just_ use Emacs as a dumb window
system, you have to enter the culture and use it to its full
capabilities to justify its resource usage.  You have to stop thinking
of Emacs as an "editor" and start thinking of it as a CASE tool.
Granted on its own it doesn't match production enviroments (for
example Rational) but it is extensible and it is difficult to beat it
on price :-)

bevan
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: johnson@cs.uiuc.edu (Ralph Johnson)
Subject: Re: Software Factory (was: Re: Do Software Engineers Actualy Do So Badly?)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:47:05 GMT

claird@litwin.com (Cameron Laird) writes:

>Successful software organizations of the year
>2000, in my estimation, will not be those that
>regard applications problems as solved by "coding
>up a program"--the tradition in which most of us
>grew up--or even by design, in its lower-level
>senses.  They will, as one contributor recently
>complained, have a "de-skilling" attitude.  They
>will expect their employees to show facility at
>combining standard components, at translating
>high-level specifications into solutions, and at
>carrying out their business within a *measured*
>workplace.

"De-skilling" implies that companies will try to do the job
with ignorant people.  That is a bad conotation, even though
I know that it is true in some cases.  The right way to
explain the situation is that companies want to solve
business problems, not programming problems, and they don't
want to spend most of their energy on software problems.
So, they will buy prepackaged solutions to software problems,
and will combine them to solve their business problems.

Hypercard is a nice example of this.  User interface builders
are nice examples.  These kinds of systems don't favor stupid
people, but they do let people without a lot of CS training
do things that used to require a lot of programming expertise.
They don't put the software engineers out of work, since these kinds of
systems are built by software engineers.

It is possible that increasing the power of the non-programmer
might someday hurt the job opportunities for programmers, but
it hasn't happened yet.  Companies have just as big backlogs
as ever, and skilled people are still in demand.  OF course,
the skills that are in demand have changed, and will continue
to change.

Ralph Johnson -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: rex@iqsc.COM (Rex Black)
Subject: Re: Who tests?
Organization: IQ Software Corp.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:22:15 GMT

Robert Firth writes:
>So, in conclusion, I don't think more testing, by whomever, is the answer.
>The answer must be to work smarter, not harder; and it's pretty clear
>for the work of Boehm, Mills and others that it is far, far better not
>to put defects into the product in the early days than to make heroic
>efforts to weed them out in the final days.

Here be dragons.  I think we need to distinguish between TQM, which is a 
methodology for improving processes, and testing, which is a methodology 
for finding defects.  TQM is about improving a process so that it runs 
more efficiently and produces fewer defects.  Testing is about finding 
defects before the customer does.  Robert, if your point is that once
one has a _mature_ TQM program in place throughout the organization one 
will expend fewer resources on testing and testing-related coding, then
I'll buy that.  However, I believe it would be very foolish for any 
company to scrap its testing efforts entirely immediately upon starting
at TQM program.  TQM is a long term investment, while testing is a risk-
reduction effort.

Rex