juancho@dgp.toronto.edu (John Buchanan) (01/29/88)
In MS-DOS there is a location which contains the \ character
so that if you change the contents to / then you have a decent directory
delimeter. I would like to do this on My 1040. Is this possible?
****Get out your fire extingushers.******
My guess is that while they were introducing hard coded limits
into the OS they managed to see that the user had some alternatives in
MS-DOS and then they eliminated them.
My-My It is funny to see a terminal melt while I flame overworked
software engineers.
--
=====================================================================
| Typical conversation on comp.[atari|amiga|mac].* |
=====================================================================
My watch is better than yours. It has multitasking, windows and
plays Old macdonald has a farm. I will not listen to reason, ofapratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) (02/03/88)
in article <1988Jan29.130047.18554@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, juancho@dgp.toronto.edu (John Buchanan) says: > My guess is that while they were introducing hard coded limits > into the OS they managed to see that the user had some alternatives in > MS-DOS and then they eliminated them. I do not consider it a flame against me (The Keeper of GEMDOS and Loremaster) when you slam GEMDOS. The programmer mentioned elsewhere in this newsgroup (since Bruce Holloway didn't mention his name, I won't either) is the culprit, and I have been fixing his code for the last four months. I have put out the worst fires, but I don't ever see this version of GEMDOS matching MS-DOS 3.x... It would take a complete rewrite. Even so, I have killed the 40-folder bug, fixed Malloc, and removed the molasses from the FAT handling code, plus lots of other, more minor fixes. Sorry about teasing you with this stuff, but I don't know how or when it will be released. One good possibility is as a RAM-loaded upgrade (only 32K, not 200K like RAM TOS was). ============================================ Opinions expressed above do not necessarily -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. ...ames!atari!apratt
rnss@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Ron Schreiner) (02/05/88)
In article <969@atari.UUCP> apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes: >Even so, I have killed the 40-folder bug, fixed Malloc, and removed the >molasses from the FAT handling code, plus lots of other, more minor >fixes. Sorry about teasing you with this stuff, but I don't know how or >when it will be released. One good possibility is as a RAM-loaded >upgrade (only 32K, not 200K like RAM TOS was). > Allan, Who at Atari does know ?? Also I heard that Neil is changing jobs at Atari, who will take his place. -- Ron Schreiner AT&T Bell Labs ...ihnp4!ihuxy!rnss
jchiu@ccvaxa.UUCP (02/06/88)
/* Written 2:50 pm Feb 2, 1988 by apratt@atari.UUCP in ccvaxa:comp.sys.atari.st */ >Even so, I have killed the 40-folder bug, fixed Malloc, and removed the >molasses from the FAT handling code, plus lots of other, more minor >fixes. Sorry about teasing you with this stuff, but I don't know how or >when it will be released. One good possibility is as a RAM-loaded >upgrade (only 32K, not 200K like RAM TOS was). Looks like the perfect thing for posting. But, with Atari, Hun! (a Chinese dis-trust sound) Tough luck!!! This is again NOT a flame toward Alan. Jeff Chiu Atari: just because other people put their system into ROM, it doesn't mean that *yours* is qualified to fit in there.
mrd@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Mike DeCorte) (02/06/88)
In article <969@atari.UUCP> apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes:
Even so, I have killed the 40-folder bug, fixed Malloc, and removed the
molasses from the FAT handling code, plus lots of other, more minor
fixes. Sorry about teasing you with this stuff, but I don't know how or
when it will be released. One good possibility is as a RAM-loaded
upgrade (only 32K, not 200K like RAM TOS was).
Two questions: One is this a FIX of the 40-folder bug or a patch? The
current patch just bumps up the limit but can still be broken. In
other words did you fix it so that I could have an infinite number of
folders or that I can set some limit that I have to promise never to
pass?
Two, can you give a reason why these fixes are not being released?
I am sure that EVERYONE would like to have these little gems :-).
--
Michael DeCorte // mrd@clutx.clarkson.edu // mrd@clutx.bitnet
(315)268-4704 // P.O. Box 652, Potsdam, NY 13676lharris@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Leonard Harris) (02/06/88)
Excuse me if I'm mistaken - but why not release the bug fixes now? As well put it in the public domain. Since it is only useful to people with Ataris and major bug fixing like this should have been done from the start, I see no reason not to let people burn their own roms to fix the operating system. If its left to Atari, we won't see this for at least 1 year!! I'm not even asking for the source - just a romable executable file that can be distributed on usenet/bitnet/atarinet etc. Is support like this too much to ask, or does Atari see $$$ in new rom sales and/or developer registrations for this? /Leonard
hase@netmbx.UUCP (Hartmut Semken) (02/08/88)
In article <969@atari.UUCP> apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes: [...] >when it will be released. One good possibility is as a RAM-loaded >upgrade (only 32K, not 200K like RAM TOS was). As for me: a RAM-TOS boted from hard disk would do. But since AHDI will not work with RAM-TOS (why?)... I just spent 68.00 Deutsche Mark for a C-Source of Gemdos published here in Germany and like some other people I will try to compile my own TOS, if possible at all. I would like to hear rumors about Atari talking to David Beckemeyer about RTX becoming the new Rom set; I dont think it is possible to make GEM support multitasking, but TOS sure could get more useful. hase -- Hartmut Semken, Berlin (west) (*east of West Germany*) hase@netmbx.UUCP ...!pyramid!tub!netmbx!hase (leave out !unido! ! Expensive for me..)
apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) (02/09/88)
in article <1988Feb6.152605.3470@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu>, lharris@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Leonard Harris) says: > Excuse me if I'm mistaken - but why not release the bug fixes now? Releasing bug fixes "now" only works on BBSes and other places where support is not really an issue. Imagine if somebody actually had to SUPPORT nethack. I will release bug fixes (from Engineering, not from the company) when I am satisfied with them. Since there is a whole list of programs which don't work any more (some for known reasons and some unknown) I am not satisfied. ============================================ Opinions expressed above do not necessarily -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. ...ames!atari!apratt
tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) (02/12/88)
In article <379@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>, mrd@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Mike DeCorte) writes: > Two questions: One is this a FIX of the 40-folder bug or a patch? > The current patch just bumps up the limit but can still be broken. In > other words did you fix it so that I could have an infinite number of > folders or that I can set some limit that I have to promise never to > pass? It sounds like a patch from Allen's comments about it being ouragously large and maybe needing FLDR???.PRG as well. You know. It strikes me that this should have been very simple to fix. You just have the HD device driver do mediach() events. > Michael DeCorte // mrd@clutx.clarkson.edu // mrd@clutx.bitnet --j.a.tainter
tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) (02/12/88)
In article <1988Feb6.152605.3470@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu>, lharris@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Leonard Harris) writes: > Excuse me if I'm mistaken - but why not release the bug fixes now? > Since it is only useful to people with Ataris. > Is support like this too much to ask, or does Atari see $$$ in new > rom sales and/or developer registrations for this? Yup. Atari has developed the commodity computer system. Every month or so you get to buy a new version of the ROMs. The systems themselves they will sell at no profit and they wil make a fortune selling ROM revisions. :-) Actually, I think they should make a RAM loaded patch and post it here, DELPHI, GENIE, COMPUSERVE (open forums not the developers SIG), the STadel network and any other of the major computer networks. > /Leonard --j.a.tainter
gert@nikhefh.hep.nl (Gert Poletiek) (02/15/88)
In article <4804@ihlpg.ATT.COM> tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) writes: >It sounds like a patch from Allen's comments about it being ouragously large >and maybe needing FLDR???.PRG as well. > >You know. It strikes me that this should have been very simple to fix. >You just have the HD device driver do mediach() events. > >--j.a.tainter Fffhew, great idea. Ever thought about disk caching? I happen to have a 1.2 MegaByte disk cache installed, always. I would hate to see your 'solution' causing my cache to be invalidated. It is already a pain in the neck that GemDos returns media changed on every other access to a write protected floppy... Gert Poletiek NIKHEF-H, Dutch National Institute for Nuclear and High Energy Physics Kruislaan 409, P.O.Box 41882, 1009 DB Amsterdam, The Netherlands UUCP: {decvax,cernvax,unido,seismo}!mcvax!nikhefh!gert bitnet: nikhefh!gert@mcvax.bitnet, U00025@hasara5.bitnet
t68@nikhefh.hep.nl (Jos Vermaseren) (02/15/88)
Whatever you do: A mediach to a hard disk can be rather destructive: All open files, half written etc, all modified but not yet written FAT clusters and more is lost when a media change is sensed by Gemdos. Gemdos does use some limited caching, especially for FATs. If you like to execute a mediachange (well... simulate one) you need to control the circumstances rather well and make absolutely sure there is nothing hanging around anymore. The FATs can be taken care of by executing a Dfree before and after the change operation, while the rest is reasonably safe when a directory with more than 32 files is listed (before and after!). I do prefer foldrxxx because I don't like to make the one fatal mistake that blows up my disk, and also the trick with the media change has to be executed regularly, so one has to monitor the folder limit continuously. Jos Vermaseren, T68@nikhefh.hep.nl
apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) (02/17/88)
in article <4805@ihlpg.ATT.COM>, tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) says: >> [...] why not release the bug fixes now? >> /Leonard > [...] Every month or so > you get to buy a new version of the ROMs. > --j.a.tainter That is exactly what will NOT happen. If I had just "released the bug fixes" when I thought they were pretty much done, you would all be complaining that there were still bugs (and some new ones). That's what internal test and pre-release beta test are for. If you want to see what happens when you "just release" things, look at comp.sources.bugs some day. Atari is a multinational corporation, and has to support what it releases. Maybe you're not satisfied with the level of support, but I think it's ludicrous for you to ask that it be LOWERED. ============================================ Opinions expressed above do not necessarily -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. ...ames!atari!apratt
singer@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Matthew R. Singer) (02/18/88)
In article <981@atari.UUCP>, apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes: > in article <4805@ihlpg.ATT.COM>, tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) says: > >> [...] why not release the bug fixes now? > >> /Leonard > > > [...] Every month or so > > you get to buy a new version of the ROMs. > > --j.a.tainter > > That is exactly what will NOT happen. If I had just "released the bug > fixes" when I thought they were pretty much done, you would all be > complaining that there were still bugs (and some new ones). That's what > internal test and pre-release beta test are for. If you want to see > what happens when you "just release" things, look at comp.sources.bugs > some day. > > Atari is a multinational corporation, and has to support what it > releases. Maybe you're not satisfied with the level of support, but I > think it's ludicrous for you to ask that it be LOWERED. > > ============================================ > Opinions expressed above do not necessarily -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. > reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. ...ames!atari!apratt What is ludicrous is that in 3 YEARS these things have not been fixed. Why should it take 3 years to fix what you have said was originally written in one month? Leaving alone the 40 folder bug. Why have these things not been fixed in 3 YEARS. Why can you write to a file that is opened for read only? Why is the fat search so slow? It is obscene that it takes so long to open a file or check disk space. Why does tos sometimes say a file is not there when it is, if the file has been added to a disk after some subdirectories have been added? The new tos roms have character ouput sped up and the RS232 handler rewritten. These were the LEAST obnoxious of the bugs in tos! Perhaps when Atari supports their machines professionally, professionals will buy their machines. Until then, my company is dropping its support for the ST. Matt Singer Commnet Systems
stowe@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (holly) (02/18/88)
In article <909@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> singer@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Matthew R. Singer) writes:
]Perhaps when Atari supports their machines professionally, professionals
]will buy their machines. Until then, my company is dropping its support
]for the ST.
]
]
]Matt Singer
]Commnet Systems
On the ST RoundTable Conference on GEnie last night, Matthew stated that
he will not be supporting his terminal program for the ST, but he will
still support FoReM ST.sid@brambo.UUCP (Sid Van den Heede) (02/19/88)
In article <4805@ihlpg.ATT.COM> tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) writes: >In article <1988Feb6.152605.3470@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu>, lharris@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Leonard Harris) writes: >> Excuse me if I'm mistaken - but why not release the bug fixes now? >> Since it is only useful to people with Ataris. >> Is support like this too much to ask, or does Atari see $$$ in new >> rom sales and/or developer registrations for this? > >Actually, I think they should make a RAM loaded patch and post it here, DELPHI, >GENIE, COMPUSERVE (open forums not the developers SIG), the STadel network >and any other of the major computer networks. > >> /Leonard > >--j.a.tainter I replied to Allan's message about the bug fixes, suggesting that the patches be posted here (since he expects them to be only 32K). No response. So now I'm posting my comments... I am a "registered developer" (ie, I bought the developer's kit) even though I don't produce any products, but I haven't heard anything that suggests I'll get a set of ROMs, even if I do have to buy them. I didn't receive an offer to acquire or purchase GDOS either, even though it exists (it comes with certain software packages). You know, the Atari ST series of machines are quite amazing devices...Too bad Atari doesn't seem to see it that way. They keep leaving out key ingredients that would give the machines a decent chance of taking off... Like GDOS...and a write signal on the cartridge port...and support...
singer@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Matthew R. Singer) (02/19/88)
In article <938@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>, stowe@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (holly) writes: > In article <909@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> singer@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Matthew R. Singer) writes: > > ]Perhaps when Atari supports their machines professionally, professionals > ]will buy their machines. Until then, my company is dropping its support > ]for the ST. > ] > ] > ]Matt Singer > ]Commnet Systems > > On the ST RoundTable Conference on GEnie last night, Matthew stated that > he will not be supporting his terminal program for the ST, but he will > still support FoReM ST. I guess I should clarify that.... Judging from sales, I don't think all that many people would care if I dropped FoReM ST, but... What I am not doing is any ST specific development. I had plans for a multi-user bbs system based on the ST, but there is no reason to do so. FoReM ST will stay consistant with the single user IBM PC version as it is source code compatible for both the main bbs and the FoReM Net network mail system. When the multi-user 286/386 version comes out later this year there will be no effort to have it run on the ST. Too few sales and too much piracy. Matt Singer Commnet Systems FoReM is the "Friends of Rickey Moose"
lharris@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Leonard Harris) (02/19/88)
When I asked that the bug fixes be released now - I assumed that the message Mr. Pratt had posted said numerous bugs had been fixed! Isn't the best way to find bugs in software to release it to the public that uses it in ways the developers never dreamed of ( if they had, the bug wouldn't be there in the first place). My original comment was to make bug fixes and the ROMS public domain. They are only ofuse to people who bought ataris, and distribution would be much cheaper and faster. I have eproms I can program - why should I pay $100 for bug fixes in new roms?
rjung@sal23.usc.edu (Robert Jung) (02/20/88)
In article <912@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> singer@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Matthew R. Singer) writes: >> ]Perhaps when Atari supports their machines professionally, professionals >> ]will buy their machines. Until then, my company is dropping its support >> ]for the ST. > >I guess I should clarify that.... > >What I am not doing is any ST specific development. >...Too few sales and too much piracy. Maybe I'm wrong (why not?), but why are you blaming Atari for piracy of Forem ST (that's what I read from the above). Piracy is piracy, and to say "Well, Atari isn't professional enough to stop it, I won't be making improvements in ST software" strikes me as completely misplaced. I've never heard of Broderbund dropping their Apple support because of all the piracy that goes on in that market, for example. I'm also interested in how many (few?) copies of Forem ST you've sold. From the ST-BBS-sysops I talk to, they're \/\/ild (hint to someone out there) about your program, and loyally promote it. Hearing you talk of "low-sales" is a bit of a surprise. --R.J. B-) ______________________________________________________________________________ Bitnet: rjung@sal124.usc.edu "Who needs an Amiga?" = == = = == = Power WithOUT the Price = == = ===== == ===== Just because it's 8-bits doesn't make it obsolete. ==== == ====
tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) (02/20/88)
In article <432@nikhefh.hep.nl>, gert@nikhefh.hep.nl (Gert Poletiek) writes: > In article <4804@ihlpg.ATT.COM> tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) writes: > >You know. It strikes me that this should have been very simple to fix. > >You just have the HD device driver do mediach() events. > >--j.a.tainter > Fffhew, great idea. Ever thought about disk caching? > I happen to have a 1.2 MegaByte disk cache installed, always. I would hate to > see your 'solution' causing my cache to be invalidated. It is already a pain > in the neck that GemDos returns media changed on every other access to a > write protected floppy... I am not saying have every event cause a mediach() nor do I advocate an at random() times cause a mediach() event. Instead have the driver check the system space available and when it gets low cause a mediach(). This should then be an infrequent event and will in fact only occur when their has been progression through the disk. This type of situation would be defeating your caches anyway. > Gert Poletiek
singer@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Matthew R. Singer) (02/20/88)
In article <280@nunki.usc.edu>, rjung@sal23.usc.edu (Robert Jung) writes: > In article <912@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> singer@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Matthew R. Singer) writes: > >> ]Perhaps when Atari supports their machines professionally, professionals > >> ]will buy their machines. Until then, my company is dropping its support > >> ]for the ST. > > > >I guess I should clarify that.... > > > >What I am not doing is any ST specific development. > >...Too few sales and too much piracy. > > Maybe I'm wrong (why not?), but why are you blaming Atari for piracy > of Forem ST (that's what I read from the above). Piracy is piracy, and to > say "Well, Atari isn't professional enough to stop it, I won't be making > improvements in ST software" strikes me as completely misplaced. I've never > heard of Broderbund dropping their Apple support because of all the piracy > that goes on in that market, for example. > > > I'm also interested in how many (few?) copies of Forem ST you've sold. > From the ST-BBS-sysops I talk to, they're \/\/ild (hint to someone out there) > about your program, and loyally promote it. Hearing you talk of "low-sales" > is a bit of a surprise. > > > > --R.J. > B-) > > > ______________________________________________________________________________ > Bitnet: rjung@sal124.usc.edu "Who needs an Amiga?" = == = > = == = > Power WithOUT the Price = == = > ===== == ===== > Just because it's 8-bits doesn't make it obsolete. ==== == ==== There are two issues. My original posting was a suggestion as to why there is a shortage of real software for the ST. I do not consider FoReM in that category. Its something I do in my spare time. Atari cannot attract "real" software companies to support the ST when in 3 years they have not addressed the easy or the most obnoxious bug in Gemdos. That was what I was aiming at. The issue of continuing support for my ST software has nothing to do with this. Or almost anyway... The smaller the market, the more of a problem piracy is. And the ST market will remain small as long as the base of "real" software is limited. And this base will remain small until such time as Atari deceides it is in its own best interest to support the ST like a "real" computer vendor. Another amusing issue: I find it truely fascinating all this discussion about David Beckmeyer releasing RTX into the public domain. I can't believe how few people even knew it existed. They want it free, but are willing to pay a small amount for the docs. Well I have news for you all, its never NEVER been that cost prohibitive. All of 69.95 list and its been around for about 2 years... How can you expect him to support it for less? Matt Singer Commnet Systems
pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) (02/22/88)
In article <909@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> singer@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Matthew R. Singer) writes: >Why does tos sometimes say a file is not there when it is, if the > file has been added to a disk after some subdirectories have been > added? Don't know about most of the things Matthew is on about -- though I would agree that Atari do appear not to be the speediest folk in the world; and that they need to improve both 'fix output' and 'documentation' if they want to be taken seriously as professional machines. However... Apropos of the particular question quoted (and the converse, why does TOS sometimes say a file is there when it isn't), a warning... (I'm not saying it can't happen at other times, but) the only time I've seen either of these effects, it's because the system has been fed 2 disks back-to-back which have the same 'unique serial number' in the header block. This is a 24-bit number generated randomly by the standard disk format routine, so the odds are very much against your ending up with a matched pair if you use the standard desktop formatter. HOWEVER, some of the PD formatters (only the first version of TWISTER, to my knowledge, but might be others) had a bug which meant that they would format all your disks with the same number. OR, if you use a 'bit-copier' ('backup-utility', 'protected disk copier', ... ProCopy which i use comes to mind) then, BY DEFINITION, the copy of a disk which it makes you will have the same unique serial number as the original. If you then actively use both disks you'll have this problem. (At one point, the ProCopy folks decided to make 'twisted' format generally available, by distributing ProCopy on a 'twisted' disk, and telling you you could get other 'twisted' disks by bit=copying their disk and deleting all the files. They very rapidly backed off from this. The problem is obvious.) OR, I would also bet that if you have multiple ORIGINAL copies of the same commercial product, the disks will be IDENTICAL including the unique serial number -- whether for protection, or for ease of production, doesn't matter. I trawled through my disks the other day and found 3 disks with identical serials (all began as bit-copies of a single disk). Re-arranging to fix that has eliminated some annoying little glitches. (I'm fortunate in that all 3 were disks I use write-protected, so I didn't actually manage to garbage any of them.) If you are experiencing this sort of problem, THINK about whether any of the above cases might hold. (If you've got a disk doctor, look at the 24-bit number at offset 8 from the beginning of the boot block (sector 0) on the disks -- the disk showing the problem, and the disk you had in that drive immediately previous.) If you do have pairs or sets with matched unique IDs, you will eventually regret it.
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (02/23/88)
In article <912@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> singer@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Matthew R. Singer) writes: >What I am not doing is any ST specific development. I had plans for >a multi-user bbs system based on the ST, but there is no reason to >do so. > >FoReM ST will stay consistant with the single user IBM PC version as >it is source code compatible for both the main bbs and the FoReM Net > network mail system. When the multi-user 286/386 version comes >out later this year there will be no effort to have it run on the >ST. Too few sales and too much piracy. > > >Matt Singer >Commnet Systems From many people I've talked to, Matt echoes the feelings of a large number of ST developers. I think it's a darned shame, and really says something about Atari and the future of the ST. For all of us that have dumped $$$ into this, we're the ones that really suffer. As Atari loses developers and product support, those of us with STs are getting stung; and Atari still has big $$$ in the bank that they don't want to spend to improve things. I just can't figure it. The ST can't attract big companies and Atari won't help the smaller companies that took a big risk developing for the ST. And in the end, it's the ST owner that gets screwed, as companies are forced to drop their support for Atari, and many end up going out of business. But then next year Atari announces a new product and sells a bundle to the next generation of suckers (those that haven't been burned yet). A new pile of hopefull software developers work their b*tts off to get some new nifty software developed (with little or no help from Atari) and Atari makes a ton of $$$ off the deal, at everybody elses expense! I wish Matt all the best! -- David Beckemeyer | "To understand ranch lingo all yuh Beckemeyer Development Tools | have to do is to know in advance what 478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | the other feller means an' then pay UUCP: ...!ihnp4!hoptoad!bdt!david | no attention to what he says"
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (02/28/88)
Might I be permitted a bit of sinful glee, now? After all, when I bought my Amiga (and for the previous months during which I was contemplating the purchase of an Amiga) I had to put up with endless harping by Atari ST owners on all the bug-fixes Commodore was putting out. I shouldn't say "I told you so", since it's unlikely any of the people in this newsgroup were involved... -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.