Date: Sat, 17 Apr 93 04:30:13 PDT
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <tcp-group@ucsd.edu>
Errors-To: TCP-Group-Errors@UCSD.Edu
Reply-To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V93 #101
To: tcp-group-digest
TCP-Group Digest Sat, 17 Apr 93 Volume 93 : Issue 101
Today's Topics:
Borland vs Microsoft vs ANSI 'C' vs C++
Current versions of sources and compilers
IP Address Coordinators (3 msgs)
wampes doc ??
X.500
x.500 service for Internet amateurs?
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu>.
Subscription requests to <TCP-Group-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>.
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the TCP-Group Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives".
We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 93 22:03:42 -0700
From: brian (Brian Kantor)
Subject: Borland vs Microsoft vs ANSI 'C' vs C++
To: tcp-group
----- Begin Included Message -----
From rec.humor.oracle Fri Apr 16 15:45:56 1993
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 93 08:54:49 -0500
From: Usenet Oracle <oracle-vote@cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Usenet Oracularity #555-06
Selected-By: Todd Radel <radel@bach.udel.edu>
The Usenet Oracle has pondered your question deeply.
Your question was:
> Many supplicants begin with
> # include "grovel.h"
> or something similar. Sometimes this is acceptable to you; other times,
> not. ISO Standard C does not include this file, so your acceptance (or
> rejection) must depend on the grovel.h file provided by the different
> compiler vendors: Microsoft, Borland, IBM, DEC, etc.
>
> I wish to be O.C. (Oracularly Correct). How do you rate the different
> grovel.h files provided by these companies?
And in response, thus spake the Oracle:
} Microsoft: Claims that theirs is the industry standard: only so
} because everyone pirates it. Microsoft should fire
} the infinite number of monkeys that they call their
} workers and consider hiring a programmer. NT? Yeah,
} tell me another one. C'mon, single-user workstations
} went out with the Apollos.
}
} Borland: The true industry standard, although only a handful of
} fanatical devotees will support that concept. Still,
} it works, which is better than Microsoft. RULE #1:
} EVERYTHING is better than Microsoft. Programs written
} in BASIC for the Timex Sinclair are better than
} Microsoft. Squirrels mating in cages are better than
} Microsoft.
}
} IBM: Second-sourced out to Microsoft. Expect an EXTREME
} drop in user support in the near future.
}
} DEC: Sure, it's the programmers' choice. But what can you
} say about software that responds to a simple request
} like 'rmdir foo/' with 'foo: is a directory.' I'm
} talking ULTRIX 4.3 here, for those of you keeping
} score at home.
}
} Apple: Very comfortable, very easy to use. But look at it
} the wrong way and... lawsuit city! Also, they've
} decided to go swimming with a ball-and-chain called
} IBM. Taligent? Yeah, right. What about that
} brilliant scheme to team up with Microsoft on
} TrueImage? See RULE #1, above. Apple only
} manufactures one thing now: inter-corporate alliances.
}
} Apollo: see HP.
}
} Sun: Hasn't released 'grovel.h' for Solaris yet. But don't
} worry: they will create a fully-owned subsidiary to
} handle all of your grovelling needs, 'SunGrovel.'
}
} Commodore: Yeah, right. But still better than Microsoft.
}
} Amdahl: Don't have time to worry about #include files; they're
} on a verge of a major breakthrough: the workstation!
}
} HP: see Apollo.
}
} BSD: The Oracle's favorite. Basically written by end-users
} who have no clue what they are doing: so of course
} everything works properly. But remember: it's
} copyrighted by the Regents of the University of
} California.
}
} You owe the Oracle a decent makefile maker. Not written by Microsoft.
----- End Included Message -----
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 93 11:24:54 -0800
From: chuckb@babbage.ecs.csus.edu (Chuck Bland)
Subject: Current versions of sources and compilers
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
I have:
* C++ 3.0
* TASM 2.01
* Sources for BEE, GRI, and KA9Q
* RCS 5.6
I would like for SOMETHING to compile without errors. So my questions
are:
* Do I have the right versions of everything ?
* How much editing is expected to actually get
something to compile ?
* What editor can handle the extremely LONG lines
in the makefile without barfing ?
* Anyone willing to help with a little E-Mail
handholding so I can get a successful compile ?
I will appreciate the help.
Thanks,
Chuck Bland
chuckb@babbage.ecs.csus.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 93 11:06:38 -0700
From: brian (Brian Kantor)
Subject: IP Address Coordinators
To: tcp-group
Once again a situation has come up where I have received complaints that
some of the IP address coordinators that I list for AMPRNet are the
source of some unhappiness in their coordination areas.
Apparently, one has given some the impression that IP addresses are a
valuable resource and that people requesting them have to "demonstrate
their worthiness" in some way or another before the address can be
assigned.
Another coordinator is reputed to be requesting a lot of personal
information - license class, home phone, etc. before assigning
addresses, and refusing to assign an address unless that data is
provided - whilst at the same time, having an unlisted home phone
himself.
Yet another is supposedly actively DIScouraging people from
experimenting with tcp/ip - as the locals are a sort of closed
group and don't really want newcomers who might louse things up.
I have no intention of naming names. These people and the poor hams in
their areas know who they are.
Gentlemen: whether these stories are really true or not, I don't know.
But dammit, if even one of them IS true, what the hell is going on here?
Do people really feel so damn powerless in their daily lives that they'll
take the slightest opportunity to play lord-and-master over a simple
volunteer job?
Surely most of the coordinators are doing an excellent job, and the
spread of tcp/ip in ham radio proves that. I would hope that the few
who have overreached would straighten out.
I'm sorry I had to write this, but it seems that one or more people need
to be reminded that this is only a hobby, not some sort of contest for
power. Please, rethink and back off. We will ALL thank you.
- Brian
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 93 18:01:01 EDT
From: crompton@NADC.NAVY.MIL (D. Crompton)
Subject: IP Address Coordinators
To: brian@UCSD.EDU
Brian,
I hope that one of the coordinators you mention is not me - I
occasionally ask for more info - like exact location - who do you
know who is on IP - if anyone - to determine what subnet they should
be assigned to within the 44.80 area. I try to depend on subaddress
coordinators also, so I often refer users to them. They report back
to me. With such a large assignment area it is hard for me to assign
addresses to a group of guys 100 miles away. These local subnet
coordinators have a block of addresses they assign from and I let
them "do their own thing" as long as they report updates back to me.
I suspect many of the areas should be run this way. It makes the
coordinators job much easier and yours no harder.
Doug
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 93 14:15:45 PDT
From: efb@suned1.Nswses.Navy.Mil (Everett F Batey)
Subject: IP Address Coordinators
To: tcp-group@UCSD.EDU, brian@UCSD.EDU
Brian .. I disagree .. ask your friendly neighborhood psychiatriast,
psychologist, MFCC or other mental health care professional .. anal-retentive
power freaks are a dime (or less) a dozen .. hate to offend but why is our
hobby so prosperous .. long ago some of us learned how to deal with them
A.R.P.F.'s .. Salud .. /Ev .. Wa6cre/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 93 09:08:38 CET
From: BARRY TITMARSH <BTITMARS%ESOC.BITNET@vm.gmd.de>
Subject: wampes doc ??
To: TCP-GROUP <TCP-GROUP@ucsd.edu>
>Date: Thu Apr 15 12:48:10 1993
>From: iiitac@pyr.swan.ac.uk
>Subject: WAMPES
>To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
>Well I'm going to move from AmigaNOS(for Linux) to WAMPES, so when and
>if I can figure it out I'll see about building a binary install set.
>Is the WAMPES documentation any better than it used to be.
>Alan
Sorry Alan, wampes docs seem amost imposible to get, i spent some 6 months
trying to squeeze the info out of a bunch of users here in Germany and the
Authors/Porters of the code. In short I gave up useing the code because of
total lack of support and docs on the configureing of things like NNTP SMTP
the BBS convers POP the only thing i had some help with was compileing
out some bugs in the early days of Linux port.
I know of countless users that have mailed the Authors and have never
had a single responce, Appart from one comment in this group, about my self
asking/complaining about lack of Usefull info on WAMPES.
I wish you Luck...
My config Linux/net via ethernet to a DOS box running Ka9q much better..
i have the best of the AX25 bits in the DOS box and the Best of UNIX
from Linux/networking over ethernet..
Barry... G8SAU/DC0HK
Im waiting for Flames now HI HI
--
No Sig Yet.. Space for rent...
--
------------------------------
Date: Fri Apr 16 12:55:35 1993
From: iiitac@pyr.swan.ac.uk
Subject: X.500
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
ISODE needs an awful lot of computing power to run
sensibly. Someone writing a mini version of that kind
of directory service would be better - preferably one that
can run inside of NOS.
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 93 14:52:46 BST
From: John Howie <jfc@computer-studies.napier.ac.uk>
Subject: x.500 service for Internet amateurs?
To: tcp-group@computer-studies.napier.ac.uk
Bob suggests that we should have a lookup service. I thought that was white
pages did! I really don't think that X.500 would be suitable for our needs
though. OSI is really going out the window and I very rarely get asked to
do consultancy work with it now. Most people are more than happy with TCP/IP
(hams and professional businesses). Maybe I am wrong but I don't like the
thought of using OSI instead of TCP/IP (especially at 1200 baud).
I'd advocate a lookup service that performed a similar function to X.500. As
for ISODE on a 486 - well it (the 486) would have to be running Unix (BSD/386
or 386BSD would do) and have a *LOT* of free disk space and huge amounts of
RAM. I can't quite remember but I am sure I used up 60Mb of disk space when
compiling it on a Sun and it wanted at least 16Mb of RAM to perform well.
Cheers, john (GM7JGR@GB7EDN.GBR.EU)
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V93 #101
******************************
******************************