roy@comcon.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) (12/16/89)
Noted in the Anchorage Daily News this morning... (no, I'm not going to type in the whole article ;-) Yesterday, Xerox Corp. filed a federal lawsuit against Apple Computer, alledging that Apple pirated their graphical user interface from original Xerox products. The suit claims substantial parts of the Star interface were copied into the Apple Lisa, and thence to the Macintosh. Xerox seeks to invalidate Apple's copyright claims on the Lisa and Mac interface designs. The story notes that Xerox's suit is "remarkably similar" to the suit Apple filed against Microsoft and Hewlitt-Packard. Apple's suit, of course, claimed that the Mac/Lisa interface was the original work of Apple. /* editorial mode ON */ Well, it is about time! I have made my share of MacJokes and shook my head at Apple's behaviour for several years, in regard to their "ownership" of the Window/Icon/Mouse/Pointer environment. I have had to hassle with GUI's that are less than intuitive because they had to change little details(to avoid Apple's legal staff). Above all, I have had to put up with Apple's whining about 'their' GUI, while remembering my first look at a Star screen oh, so many years ago. I, and others, have wondered why Xerox didn't persue this earlier. The story says they were waiting until certain copyright matters were "clarified". Now that it's in court, I hope Apple loses big! Xerox seeks 150 Million in damages for unfair competition and unfair enrichment... Once Apple gets slapped down in this suit, maybe GUI designs can finally get off the ground without the threat of "Big Apple" suing designers over insignificant points. (now, where did I put that OpenLook brochure?) /* editorial mode OFF */ -- _R_o_y _M_. _S_i_l_v_e_r_n_a_i_l | UUCP: uunet!comcon!roy | "No, I don't live in an igloo!" [ah, but it's my account... of course I opine!] -Sourdough's riposte SnailMail: P.O. Box 210856, Anchorage, Alaska, 99521-0856, U.S.A., Earth, etc.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/17/89)
In article <172@comcon.UUCP> roy@comcon.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: > I have had to hassle with GUI's > that are less than intuitive because they had to change little > details(to avoid Apple's legal staff). While I'm overjoyed that Xerox finally wake up and smelled the bacon, I'd love it if Apple retained a few fascist look-n-feel copyrights on some of the stupider "innovations" they came up with for the Mac. They're easy to figure out: they're all based on Apple's brain-damaged choice of a single button mouse: Popping the active window to the front. Pull-down menus. Double-clicking as a normal action. And the one-button mouse itself. To put it in simpler terms, I hope this doesn't lead to mindless copying of the Mac UI, warts and all. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (12/18/89)
>In article <172@comcon.UUCP> roy@comcon.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: >> I have had to hassle with GUI's >> that are less than intuitive because they had to change little >> details(to avoid Apple's legal staff). > In article <7326@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >While I'm overjoyed that Xerox finally wake up and smelled the bacon, I'd >love it if Apple retained a few fascist look-n-feel copyrights on some of >the stupider "innovations" they came up with for the Mac. They're easy to >figure out: they're all based on Apple's brain-damaged choice of a single >button mouse: Spoken like a true techno-nerd, Peter. I have personally observed highly intelligent and skilled UNIX programmers who could not remember from one minute to the next what each button on their three-button mouse did. No doubt there are a few who have been able to commit it to memory somewhere in the world, but from what I've seen, they are the exceptions. I have *never* seen a non-techno-jock user who could keep the mouse buttons straight. Multi-button mice are brain-damaged. People find it intrinsically easier to keep mental distinctions straight if there are significant differences between the things (e.g., click vs. double-click vs. shift-click) rather than having them all be relatively undifferentiated members of a flat class of phenomena (e.g., left-click, middle-click, right-click). > Popping the active window to the front. Part of the real-world metaphor approach to improving learning curves. When working with a file on a real desktop, one almost always brings it to the top of the stack first. You really haven't looked into the psychological basis of graphical interfaces at all, have you? > Pull-down menus. Arguable, but I'll let it go. Exvcept to mention that having a list of available menus on the screen is absolutely vital to another principle of manual-free software design -- feature advertisement. However, this does not necessarily mean pull-downs. > Double-clicking as a normal action. Ooh, how nasty. You actually have to double-click sometimes? Wow. That's a real bummer. Have you considered a lawsuit? > And the one-button mouse itself. See above. It seems your approach is simple. "If the Mac uses it, I'm against it." -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "I was brought up in the other service; but I knew from the first that the Devil was my natural master and captain and friend. I saw that he was in the right, and that the world cringed to his conqueror only from fear." - Shaw, "The Devil's Disciple"
barmar@Think.COM (12/18/89)
In article <7326@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >love it if Apple retained a few fascist look-n-feel copyrights on some of >the stupider "innovations" they came up with for the Mac. They're easy to >figure out: they're all based on Apple's brain-damaged choice of a single >button mouse: > Popping the active window to the front. > Pull-down menus. > Double-clicking as a normal action. > And the one-button mouse itself. At least the first and third are hardly Apple innovations. I was double-clicking on MIT Lisp Machines ten years ago (Symbolics later made shift-click equivalent to double-click in their version of the software). And MIT Lisp Machines and their descendents always bring the active window to the front. I think MIT adopted both of these features from Xerox workstations (at the time, I think it was the Alto). Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
ath@prosys.se (Anders Thulin) (12/18/89)
In article <172@comcon.UUCP> roy@comcon.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: > >Once Apple gets slapped down in this suit, maybe GUI designs can finally >get off the ground without the threat of "Big Apple" suing designers >over insignificant points. > No, in that case 'Big Apple' probably wont carry much threat. Instead the winner of the suit will be in an admirable position for threats. -- Anders Thulin, Programsystem AB, Teknikringen 2A, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden ath@prosys.se {uunet,mcsun}!sunic!prosys!ath
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/18/89)
In article <9320@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: | Spoken like a true techno-nerd, Peter. I have personally observed | highly intelligent and skilled UNIX programmers who could not remember | from one minute to the next what each button on their three-button | mouse did. No doubt there are a few who have been able to commit it to | memory somewhere in the world, but from what I've seen, they are the | exceptions. I have *never* seen a non-techno-jock user who could keep | the mouse buttons straight. Multi-button mice are brain-damaged. Overload clicks are like overloaded functions; neat concept but hard to grasp. As I watch people use the Mac, unless they use it a lot, like 20 hours per week, they frequently single click, see that it doesn't do what they want, and then double click. Less frequently vice versa. You can design a bad interface with ANY hardware, and certainly that applies to both the single and multi button mouse. The advantage of the three button mouse is that you CAN design a standard unambiguous interface. For example: left button is a selector... marks the start of text regions, selects stuff off a menu, etc. Middle button is an actor, press and hold gives a menu, poke repeats the last action (or appropriate action, such as paste after action cut). The right button is reserved for window manager interface, click near a corner and you size, near an edge and you stretch, on the scroll bar for scroll, on the top for move, on the hot spot for iconize. Since this doesnt require being RIGHT ON an edge to be unambiguois it reducesd the need for pointer accuract and allows very narrow borders. Any consistent interface will be better than confusion, and I don't think that the single button mouse, which substitutes multiclick for button selection, in any way insures good selection of features (not precludes it). Your egregious insults (techno-nerd) emphasizes the paucity of technical merit in your argument. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
dbristo@cadev6.intel.com (David Bristor ~) (12/19/89)
Christmas wish: Apple, Xerox, HP, and Microsoft agree to cancel all lawsuits. Apple donates several Macintoshes to Free Software Foundation, which promptly releases a Mac version of GNU Emacs. Apple also puts Hypercard in the public domain. I can dream, right? -- Dave Bristor dbristo@cadev4.intel.com #include <sys/disclaimer.h>
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (12/19/89)
In article <7326@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > "innovations" they came up with for the Mac. They're easy to figure out: > they're all based on Apple's brain-damaged choice of a single button mouse: > Popping the active window to the front. What does popping the active window to the front have to do with a one-button mouse? I don't see any reason why, with a one-button mouse, you can't do suntools style window activation. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma"
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/19/89)
In article <9320@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: > Spoken like a true techno-nerd, Peter. Nothing like starting an argument off with an insult to promote rational discussion. > I have personally observed > highly intelligent and skilled UNIX programmers who could not remember > from one minute to the next what each button on their three-button > mouse did. So, because X-windows has a horrible user interface then multi-button mice are bad. Have a look at some systems that use multiple buttons consistently, like the Xerox Star or the Amiga. > People find it intrinsically easier to keep mental distinctions > straight if there are significant differences between the things Like maybe each key on the keyboard had a different shape? I think you have oberved a phenomenon in isolation and applied your prejudices (learned from the Macintosh marketing literature) to it, rather than trying to figure out what the real problem was. > Part of the real-world metaphor approach to improving learning curves. > When working with a file on a real desktop, one almost always brings it > to the top of the stack first. Bt not always. And there are two seperate actions involved. On my desktop, I sometimes slide something out from the bottom of a pile a few inches. I can't do thet on the Mac. > [double-clicking] On the Xerox Star you run an application by dropping a document into a processor (mailbox, editor, printer, whatever). This is much more intuitive than double-clicking. > You really haven't looked into the > psychological basis of graphical interfaces at all, have you? Right. Just because I don't agree with you I must not have thought about it. > It seems your approach is simple. "If the Mac uses it, I'm against it." Not at all. There are *other* aspects of the Apple UI that are nice. Having scroll bars that vary in size according to the percentage of the objects displayed is nice. Click-and-drag for rubber-band lines is nice. Automatically detecting diskette insertion is nice. But the single- button mouse, and the kludges necessary to use it, isn't. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/19/89)
In article <1989Dec18.170653.24963@phri.nyu.edu> roy@alanine.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > What does popping the active window to the front have to do with a > one-button mouse? I don't see any reason why, with a one-button mouse, > you can't do suntools style window activation. You're right. I'm not familiar with SunTools but I'm sure there are things they could have done. But it's still brain-damaged. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (12/20/89)
In article <1920@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes: > Overload clicks are like overloaded functions; neat concept but hard >to grasp. As I watch people use the Mac, unless they use it a lot, like >20 hours per week, they frequently single click, see that it doesn't do >what they want, and then double click. Less frequently vice versa. I've rarely observed this, but then, most Mac users I've dealt with have in fact used it for twenty hours a week or more. Double clicking seems to be one of the things people catch on to almost immediately after starting to use the Mac; shift-clicking, though, is not. And as for the distinction between shift, command, and option clicking, forget it, even most power users don't know the difference. (It doesn't help that the Finder violates the standard in this regard, either.) > You can design a bad interface with ANY hardware, and certainly that >applies to both the single and multi button mouse. The advantage of the >three button mouse is that you CAN design a standard unambiguous >interface. For example: left button is a selector... marks the start of >text regions, selects stuff off a menu, etc. Middle button is an actor, >press and hold gives a menu, poke repeats the last action (or >appropriate action, such as paste after action cut). The right button is >reserved for window manager interface, click near a corner and you size, >near an edge and you stretch, on the scroll bar for scroll, on the top >for move, on the hot spot for iconize. So, let's see, the middle button is an actor, so I want to perform the action of dragging the window around the screen, I use that. The left button's a selector, so I use it to pop up a menu that I want to select from. The right button is for the windows, so I use it to give any menu commands that are specific to the window type. The middle button's an actor, so I use it to perform the action of giving menu commands. The right button's for the window manager, so I use it to choose things in windows. The left button's a selector, so I use it to select the stretch/zoom state of my windows. Your distinctions are anything but clear; even if you could clear them up, only techno-jocks would understand them. > Any consistent interface will be better than confusion, and I don't >think that the single button mouse, which substitutes multiclick for >button selection, in any way insures good selection of features (not >precludes it). No, but it prevents such atrocious and vague interface features as the ones you proposed above. > Your egregious insults (techno-nerd) emphasizes the paucity of >technical merit in your argument. Peter has called himself the same thing in the past and indicated that he is proud to be a techno-nerd. Therefore, my statement was neither egregious nor an insult. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com Never ascribe to stupidity what can adequately be explained by malice.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/21/89)
In article <9361@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: > Peter has called himself the same thing in the past and indicated that > he is proud to be a techno-nerd. Therefore, my statement was neither > egregious nor an insult. "Magic is a matter of symbolism and intent" -- Master Sean, "Lord Darcy" stories by Randall Garret. So are insults. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
olle@greybox.OZ (John Olle) (12/21/89)
>Yesterday, Xerox Corp. filed a federal lawsuit against Apple Computer ...
Could it not be in Apple's interest to be successfully sued? They may
benefit more from the precedent created than they stand to lose by the
law suit. If this was the case, what would be the legal implications of
deliberately failing to defend yourself properly to gain advantage?
In no way do I imply that I think Apple will do this. I am just
intrigued by the hypothetical possibilities.
John Olle
Don't take life seriously. That's what chess is for.tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (12/22/89)
In article <9320@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >> Spoken like a true techno-nerd, Peter. In article <7340@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Nothing like starting an argument off with an insult to promote rational >discussion. Sorry, I was under the impression that you were the same Peter da Silva who said on gnu.misc.discuss last week, "I'm a computer nerd. And proud of it." >> I have personally observed >> highly intelligent and skilled UNIX programmers who could not remember >> from one minute to the next what each button on their three-button >> mouse did. > >So, because X-windows has a horrible user interface then multi-button >mice are bad. Have a look at some systems that use multiple buttons >consistently, like the Xerox Star or the Amiga. Actually, my only experience with multi-button mice is on Suns, as an employee of the Information Technology Center at C-MU and at the TOPS division of Sun. >> People find it intrinsically easier to keep mental distinctions >> straight if there are significant differences between the things > >Like maybe each key on the keyboard had a different shape? Keyboards *are* hard to learn. Most people take a long time to learn to type with acceptable speed and accuracy. But at least the keys that are of different type from the others (such as shift, control, etc.) do have distinctive shapes and locations, and all the keys have clear labels as to their function. (The right lower corner is a distinctive location; where the "h" and "t" keys are is not.) If multiple-button mice had iconic or textual labels on the buttons, they would be easier to use. >I think you have oberved a phenomenon in isolation and applied your >prejudices (learned from the Macintosh marketing literature) to it, >rather than trying to figure out what the real problem was. Bullshit. >> Part of the real-world metaphor approach to improving learning curves. >> When working with a file on a real desktop, one almost always brings it >> to the top of the stack first. > >Bt not always. And there are two seperate actions involved. On my desktop, >I sometimes slide something out from the bottom of a pile a few inches. I >can't do thet on the Mac. If all you want to do is look at it, you can do that on the Mac as well. I suggest that the number of time someone wants to make marks on a sheet of paper which is not on the top of its stack on the desktop is vanishingly small. >> [double-clicking] > >On the Xerox Star you run an application by dropping a document into a >processor (mailbox, editor, printer, whatever). This is much more intuitive >than double-clicking. Agreed; unfortunately, it can also be much less ergonomically efficient. >> You really haven't looked into the >> psychological basis of graphical interfaces at all, have you? > >Right. Just because I don't agree with you I must not have thought about it. No: just because you don't refer to those principles, you must not have thought about them. >> It seems your approach is simple. "If the Mac uses it, I'm against it." > >Not at all. There are *other* aspects of the Apple UI that are nice. >Having scroll bars that vary in size according to the percentage of the >objects displayed is nice. Mac scroll bars do not vary in size except with the size of the window; that is, they fill the left or bottom edge of the window regardless of its size. Perhaps you are referring to the variable position of the thumb? >Click-and-drag for rubber-band lines is nice. I don't believe this was a Mac innovation. In fact, didn't Sketchpad do almost exactly the same thing? You might as well say you like the fact that the Mac has a keyboard. >Automatically detecting diskette insertion is nice. Actually, I'd say that *not* detecting them is stupid. It's a pretty obvious thing to do for the user, not really deserving of praise. >But the single-button mouse, and the kludges necessary to use it, isn't. I don't think they're kludges. I trust you're aware that there is a sort of "conversion shock" in switching from one interface to another; one has always taken it for granted that the previously learned interface was the "right way", so this new way must be the wrong way, because of the overhead it imposes on one's mind. It is always frustrating to have to learn new ways of doing things. I have to wonder if this kind of shock isn't a factor here. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Every institution I've ever been associated with has tried to screw me." -- Stephen Wolfram
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/24/89)
In article <9375@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: > Sorry, I was under the impression that you were the same Peter da Silva > who said on gnu.misc.discuss last week, "I'm a computer nerd. And proud > of it." [Disclaimer: the following is used purely to illustrate a point. I am not attempting to claim that the levels of prejudice, bigotry, social disadvantage, and so on are at all comparable. ] It's ok for one black guy to call another "nigger". It's not OK for a white guy to do it. > Actually, my only experience with multi-button mice is on Suns, I'm truly sorry to hear that. > >I think you have oberved a phenomenon in isolation and applied your > >prejudices (learned from the Macintosh marketing literature) to it, > >rather than trying to figure out what the real problem was. > Bullshit. Well, then how about trying a system that consistently uses multiple buttons. Like the Xerox Star (ever heard of it?) or the Amiga. > I suggest that the number of time someone wants to make marks on > a sheet of paper which is not on the top of its stack on the desktop is > vanishingly small. I scribble notes on partially obscured listings all the time. > >> You really haven't looked into the > >> psychological basis of graphical interfaces at all, have you? > >Right. Just because I don't agree with you I must not have thought about it. > No: just because you don't refer to those principles, you must not have > thought about them. Right. Observing that I prefer the Star metaphor of drawing a document into a tool (which you just agreed is more intuitive), on the grounds that it's more intuitive, doesn't count. > Mac scroll bars do not vary in size except with the size of the window; > that is, they fill the left or bottom edge of the window regardless of > its size. Perhaps you are referring to the variable position of the > thumb? Screw the terminology. You obviously understand what I'm talking about. > >Automatically detecting diskette insertion is nice. > Actually, I'd say that *not* detecting them is stupid. It's a pretty > obvious thing to do for the user, not really deserving of praise. Many innovations are "obvious" once they've been put into place. > >But the single-button mouse, and the kludges necessary to use it, isn't. > I don't think they're kludges. I do. > I trust you're aware that there is a > sort of "conversion shock" in switching from one interface to another; Yeh, but I played with a Lisa before I had a chance to use anything with a multibutton mouse. I spent extensive time on a Mac years before I had a chance at an Amiga. I first used X-windows 6 months ago. If this was a factor it'd be the other way around. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (12/31/89)
In article <7408@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > It's ok for one black guy to call another "nigger". No, no, no, it's NOT! Peter, I know you only used this to illustrate a point, but, it is not "OK" for *anyone* to use racial/national/ ethnic slurs and epithets (yes, one has the right to -- but that doesn't make it "OK"). Jeff Daiell -- "In the carriages of the past, you can't go anywhere." -- Maxim Gorky
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (12/31/89)
In article <JBWVH3xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: : In article <7408@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: : : > It's ok for one black guy to call another "nigger". : : No, no, no, it's NOT! Peter, I know you only used this to illustrate : a point, but, it is not "OK" for *anyone* to use racial/national/ : ethnic slurs and epithets (yes, one has the right to -- but that : doesn't make it "OK"). Excuse me, Jeff, but *your* prejudices are showing. You seem to have this silly notion that words are somehow possessed of intrinsic meaning, that an ethnic slur is an ethnic slur, regardless of who says it, or to whom it is said. This is utter nonsense, as any linguist will tell you. Among some blacks, calling one another "nigger" is (or was, 20 years ago) a sign of affection and approval. It was *not* an ethnic slur. It was one of the many ways of reinforcing a sense of community. The fact that *you* would use "nigger" as an ethnic slur does *not* make it one when a black uses it. Whether a given word or phrase is an ethnic slur or not depends on *who* is saying it and to *whom* he's saying it to. What you think of the word is quite irrelevant. Or, let me put it this way: were I black and disposed to using "nigger" with my friends, and you told me not to, I'd tell you something like: "who the hell do you think you are telling me what I mean when I say `nigger'? Get lost, honky". (For the record: I find the word "nigger" revolting. I don't use it.) Followups have been directed to alt.dev.null. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/31/89)
In article <JBWVH3xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > No, no, no, it's NOT! Peter, I know you only used this to illustrate > a point, but, it is not "OK" for *anyone* to use racial/national/ > ethnic slurs and epithets (yes, one has the right to -- but that > doesn't make it "OK"). So, Jeff, is it OK for you to call me a computer nerd? Is it OK for Karl to call me one? How about referring to myself that way? How about our buddy over on hoptoad? Or should I refer to myself as a socially disabled individual? -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com