jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (12/31/90)
>Well... look at it another way. Support personel are expensive. >Development people are expensive (as are all the people to back them up: >production, documentation, sales, managers, internal support, hardware >maintainance, etc.). So... would you rather have to pay $8000 for a single >license, and get the support you want, or pay $1000, and get somewhat >limited support? Note that people at SCO and ISC *do* read this group, and >some of them (us) are very protective towards their (our) respective >products. While not everyone has access to usenet, it *is* something. >(I've also gotten email from people who had other people give them my name, >and I do try to help. It's not my highest priority, but it is something I >pay attention to.) [on my soapbox] Then pay attention to this. That red herring you run up regarding support stank in the CP/M days, it stank in the DOS days and it especially stinks with Unix. Quite frankly we as customers and developers don't give a fiddler's damn how much support staff or development staff or marketing staff or the front office receptionist cost. That's all a part of doing business. If you can't run with the big boys, don't get off the porch as the old saying goes. One could even note that support costs would be minimal if the original product exhibited a modicum of quality. A company does not have to support non-existant bugs. Support is integral to the whole product. If someone at ISC or SCO wanted to see how support makes a product, have someone take a millisecond's look at WordPerfect sometime. Though I consider WP to be a terrible word processor, the quality of the package and the support make me recommend it to my clients. Look at what you get for your couple of hundred bucks: * Totally free tech support * UNLIMITED tech support even if it qualifies as hands holding. * Even an 800 number to get it from. * Enough well prepared documentation that most people don't need support. * A program that runs on just about anything that will boot DOS or Unix and that will drive just about any device hooked to it capable of putting ink on paper. And ISC or SCO tries to tell us that they can't provide a fraction of the quality for many times the dollars? Bullshit! Either of these products would be laughed off the pages of any magazine that reviewed them to the same standards as DOS products. Before the SCO or ISC cheerleaders try to note that Unix is bigger or more complicated, consider that about 90% of Unix comes already written from AT&T. I'd lay odds that WP has written more original code for its product than both of the Unix vendors put together. The problem is that both SCO and ISC started small, are small and will remain small because they think small. It's a small minded attitude that makes a company think that they have to nick every customer for every dollar that it can. Perhaps someone at either company should take an evening and read a Drucker book on quality sometime. >>[bug fixing] is something I should be able to get for free, since I paid for a>>WORKING package, not "15 diskettes with whatever happens to be on them". >For the most part, I agree. However, if you are the only customer >experiencing this panic, and it is not readily reproducible, why should a >company spend thousands of dollars to fix it? I know it sounds callous, but >money has to come from *somewhere*. And, of course, see the comment about >SCO's SLS's above. That's the attidude that will guarantee that when a Unix company comes along that understands service, these two companies will find themselves about as relevant as Digital Research is now. As surprising as it may seem, a user or developer does not really give a damn how many others are having panics or how many dollars it takes to fix it. If it takes HIS machine(s) down, it is a fatal flaw. Is it going to take getting lawyers involved to force a change? While we're on the subject of bug fixes, why do you suppose it is that ISC cannot fix the damn Inode bug? The bug had been explained to them on the net. There have been binary patches posted to the net. And still the bug persists even in versions hot out of the box. If their "high priced" technical help cannot fix a bug for which a solution has been handed to them on a silver platter, what does that say about other aspects of the product. And why can't they fix uugetty or write a asy port driver that that works? Why can I write a uugetty in an evening that DOES work and they can't fix it at all? Why does FAS exist and ISC not at least take a peek at how to do it right? And why can't they make the boot process look at the hardware and post at least a semi- intelligible error message when problems are found instead of simply locking up? After all, the DOS guys have been doing this for oh, what, 10 years or so. And why can't the SCSI disk driver make at least a weak attempt at error recovery rather than throwing up its hands in panic? Could it not figure out that a "media change sense error" on a hard drive might just be spurrious and maybe, just maybe retry the operation and see what happens? Oh, I guess they think we all like to sit around for the 30 minutes it takes for a GB of disk to fsck. Yeah, there's the answer! It can't be that they don't have time to fix any of this stuff. If they were that overworked, they would not have time for such trivial stuff as auth. So the answer has to be that they just don't give a damn. These guys are doing the same thing with Unix as IBM did with the PC. They're killing their own product with callousness toward their customer base and are just daring others to fill the void. I say godspeed to anyone who decides to take advantage of this opportunity. I recommend ISC to my clients now as the lesser of the evils but I'll flip in a New York second to any company that discovers that service is something more than a few glory words printed in a brochure. (A word to anyone from Kodak - Hey guys, how about taking a look at this little company and injecting some of the quality I've come to know in your film and chemicals? Do us all a favor and kick some ass.) [Off my soapbox now] John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | "To be engaged in opposing wrong offers but {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd | a slender guarantee of being right."
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (12/31/90)
In article <5553@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: >Before the SCO or ISC cheerleaders try to note that Unix is bigger or >more complicated, consider that about 90% of Unix comes already written >from AT&T. I'd lay odds that WP has written more original code for its >product than both of the Unix vendors put together. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ While I agree with John's comments wholeheartedly, I just want to point out -- puleeeeeez -- that SCO and ISC are not "THE" UNIX vendors! Everex, Dell, Intel, UHC, and AT&T themselves all market shrink wrapped end user UNIX. The days of only one or two players in the UNIX marketplace are just a memory, albeit one SCO and ISC's marketing drones would love to perpetuate... -- Cogito ergo spud. I think, O OO O Tom Neff therefore I yam. -- anon O OO OO tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM
richard@xanth.ingr.com (Richard Griffiths ) (01/01/91)
... meaningful lines of posting deleted. |> |> -- |> Cogito ergo spud. I think, O OO O Tom Neff |> therefore I yam. -- anon O OO OO tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I believe this should be attributed to Popeye. :-^ Richard A. Griffiths ...uunet!ingr!b11!xanth!richard (UUCP) Intergraph Corp. richard@b11.ingr.com (Internet) "Cynical optimism - a philosophical palindrome".
stevewa@upvax.UUCP (Steve Ward) (01/01/91)
In article <5553@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: >(A word to anyone from Kodak - Hey guys, how about taking a look at this >little company and injecting some of the quality I've come to know in >your film and chemicals? Do us all a favor and kick some ass.) I agree. My Fiance has a Diconix printer (also a Kodak division), and when we got Windows 3.0 for her machine it wasn't directly supported. A phone call to the support number not only got me intelligent help getting the printer up and running on a temporary basis, but it also got me on the list for a drivers disk that included a new Win3 driver as well as drivers for a number of other programs, FREE. Granted, that was only one diskette, but the fact that they handled the problem so competently indicates to me that it should be possible for ISC to do the same. From what we've seen here, I think it safe to say ISC is currently not up to Kodak's standard, support-wise. Hopefully something will be done to change that sooner or later... Steve -- | Steve Ward Jr. appears courtesy of | stevewa@upvax.UUCP | | Univ. of Portland, Portland, OR | !tektronix!upvax!stevewa | | (insert disclaimer here) | upvax!stevewa@tektronix.TEK.COM | | --If all else fails, try: tektronix.TEK.COM!upvax!stevewa@uunet.uu.net |
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (01/01/91)
>Then pay attention to this. That red herring you run up regarding >support stank in the CP/M days, it stank in the DOS days and it >especially stinks with Unix. Quite frankly we as customers and >developers don't give a fiddler's damn how much support staff or >development staff or marketing staff or the front office receptionist >cost. That's all a part of doing business. If you can't run with the >big boys, don't get off the porch as the old saying goes. One could even >note that support costs would be minimal if the original product >exhibited a modicum of quality. A company does not have to support >non-existant bugs. > [...] It feels good one someone puts it into words so well. Thanks, John. Your whole article was well written, and very much on-target.
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (01/01/91)
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >>product than both of the Unix vendors put together. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >While I agree with John's comments wholeheartedly, I just want to point >out -- puleeeeeez -- that SCO and ISC are not "THE" UNIX vendors! Sorry about that :-) However, look at your list: Everex, No, it's a performace dog plus I don't like the "no docs" approach. Probably a good hobby system. Dell Don't know - will it run reliably on non-dell hardware? Intel You gotta be kidding. "Intel Support" is an oxymoron. UHC Don't know about these guy. Any good? How does it compare to ISC performance-wise. AT&T You gotta be kidding on non-AT&T hardware. "AT&T support" is also an oxymoron. The other problem is that most 3rd party vendors don't support much other than ISC and SCO. If you contact most hardware vendors, they seem to supply device drivers only for these 2 versions. I'd love to see the situation change and would be willing to go out of my way to help a vendor but as of now, only the 2 leader are supported for the most part. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | "To be engaged in opposing wrong offers but {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd | a slender guarantee of being right."
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (01/01/91)
In article <5568@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: >tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: > >>While I agree with John's comments wholeheartedly, I just want to point >>out -- puleeeeeez -- that SCO and ISC are not "THE" UNIX vendors! > >Sorry about that :-) However, look at your list: >Everex, No, it's a performace dog plus I don't like the "no docs" > approach. Probably a good hobby system. I'm running Esix V.3.2.D and it seems pretty fast to me. Haven't been able to bench it against others as I don't have others. A comparable IBM80 running Xenix and MCA bus that lives about 4 feet away is faster in some areas, and slower in others. You can get docs, and the PH docs are cheaper and identical to the regular docs. You get about 500+ pages that are specifice to the Esix implementation. The FSS seems more responsive than stock SysV file systems. >UHC Don't know about these guy. Any good? How does it compare to > ISC performance-wise. Hey - I don't about their V.4 on a '386, but I saw their V.4 running on one of their own machines last June and it was FAASSTT! Of course it was a dual processor box with an i486 coupled with an i860. Like Everex and Dell they mfr both hardware and software. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
emanuele@overlf.UUCP (Mark A. Emanuele) (01/02/91)
In article <5568@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>, jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: > AT&T You gotta be kidding on non-AT&T hardware. "AT&T support" is also > an oxymoron. You're right about it on non ATT hardware. However, I STRONGLY disagree with you on the support. I had a problem with a unix system a few months ago. I called the support line at 11:30 PM. Not only did someone answer the phone, but they got me a support engineer who in turn got his DISTRICT MANAGER on the line. They stayed on the line with me for 4.5 hours until the problem was fixed. NOW I CALL T H A T S U P P O R T !!!!!!. Now I admit we DID pay for a 24 Hr. 365 Day service contract. But as the saying goes, You get what you pay for. -- Mark A. Emanuele V.P. Engineering Overleaf, Inc. 500 Route 10 Ledgewood, NJ 07852-9639 attmail!overlf!emanuele (201) 927-3785 Voice (201) 927-5781 fax emanuele@overlf.UUCP
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (01/03/91)
>From what we've seen here, I think it safe to say ISC is currently not up >to Kodak's standard, support-wise. Hopefully something will be done to >change that sooner or later... > Interesting. Perhaps a few of us should contact Kodak and let them know how bad things are.
david@ctr.columbia.edu (David Freidlander) (01/03/91)
I've been reading this flame war for a few days now, and just think out of fairness, I should put in this plug: I've been USING and DEVELOPING ON (and on rare occasion, selling and installing) Interactive Unix, from 1.0.6 to 2.2.2. I've run into some problems, but my experience with their support has been excellent. Live people answer the telephones on their 800 number quickly, they know (or can quickly look up) the answer, if they say they'll call back, they DO; they've spent all the time I've ever needed and SOLVED problems, both tekky and stupid. Now, perhaps this has to do with the office I'm dealing with, the one in New Hampshire. This office just split from Interactive Systems and made some deal where they are selling the system, but are a new company called MultiUser Systems. I really can't believe I'm dealing with the same folks some of the flamers are talking about. David Friedlander
dar@max.intel.com (dar) (01/05/91)
[Deleted commentary on how ISC & SCO UNIX support stinks relative to support from WordPerfect for their DOS package.] I just can't let this one go by ... The whole point is that UNIX is phenomenally more complex *in its potential uses* than even a complex word processing system like WP. The cost of support is not in development [even so, it's misleading to state that "90% of UNIX comes complete from AT&T ... the sheer maintenance, version control, repackaging, publishing and so on for over 60MB of source is difficult enough even if you don't change one line. To change 10% makes it a very major deal]. The cost of support is driven up nearly exponentially (actually, the factorial) as the number of degrees of freedom in usage and capability goes up. Running a single program in a hermetically sealed environment, like WP on DOS, is a fairly straightforward support task. UNIX has hundreds of utilities, many of which are as complex, or more so, than WP. Supporting UNIX means supporting each of those utilities in possible permutations with multiple simultaneous users. Just being a system administrator in UNIX is a major, major support issue. Picking a printer file from WP just doesn't compare. In another issue, many of the UNIX utilities are very open-ended in their potential uses. For example, one can use the C compilation system to create arbitrarily complex programs for any possible use of the machine. Supporting UNIX usually means supporting people's interaction with their systems as they learn C. Compared to C, which deals with the creation of rapidly more complex logical structures, the subject matter of WP, mere text, is considerably more static. The actual experience of any UNIX software company selling and supporting UNIX is that 90+% of the support calls are "education" calls, where the problem is resolved by teaching someone UNIX. Calls generated by true bugs are extremely rare. It is extremely common for people to place support calls not to resolve an ambiguity in the manuals or operation of C compiler switches and the like, but rather to get an over-the-phone tutorial on how to use C, what a 'cast' is, how pointers and indirection work, and so on. For all of its good support, WP doesn't commit to teach people how to touch-type over the telephone, nor does it spend time teaching people how to use their word processor to correctly write a legal document or to tap out the next Great American Novel I know there are many expert users of UNIX who never use support calls to get educated, or to call a "free" support line in lieu of taking five minutes to crack open a manual. My guess is that 10% of the users are using 90% of the support traffic for self-education or to get information which is in the manual set. Somebody pays the cost of that support, and the cost (obviously) is born by the 90% of the customer base which does not utilize support for such uses. Now, I know that if you want to be in the business you got to pay the freight. Part of the cost of selling a complicated product like UNIX is to be ready to shoulder a larger support burden, probably involving a lot of customer education. The only question is how the costs of that service get allocated and who gets to pay. Ultimately, the customer base is going to pay (after all, that's where the money comes from, not thin air). So the real question is how you are going to allocate support costs through your customer base. Personally, as one of the 90% of the customer base that almost never calls support, I'd rather get a price break on my UNIX package than have to pay one thin dime more to subsidize a support service for those people who call to complain that they didn't get an "A" and "B" compiler along with their C compiler [true story]. After all, knowledge and capability are competitive advantages in this business. Why should I spend a few hundred bucks extra per UNIX package so that SCO or ISC can provide free support to those of my competitors who are too stupid or too lazy to crack open their UNIX manuals? The problem with free support is the same problem as free anything, known as "the tragedy of the commons" in game theory - free stuff tends to get abused by the wrong people. Free information calls mean people just don't bother to use phone books. Free access to "the commons" (a grazing area in the center of the village open to all, for those of you not from New England) means that the commons gets over-grazed and ruined by those too lazy to herd their sheep out of town. Free support in the style to which some would like to be accustomed simply means that an abusive minority will chew up the resource to get educated over the phone. A better solution is that people pay some fair rate for support. That way, the people who don't need support don't end up subsidizing those who do, and those who want a lot of support can pay for what they use. I know this will annoy a lot of socialists out there, but paying a fair price for what you use tends to work out very well in the real world. Finally, let me note that the $300 to $600 cost of modern "big time" DOS packages like WP is extremely high relative to what you get by way of capabilities and support. Considering that most UNIX systems deliver hundreds of more programs and a far richer set of capabilities, the fact that they cost $1000 to $2000. Sure they could be better, but SCO and ISC should be commended for the support they do provide. Dimitri Rotow PS - Sorry to lob a big note like this on the net and then move, but I will be moving this next week back down to California and will be off the net for a while. I'll try to catch up on the flames as able.
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (01/05/91)
dar@max.intel.com (dar) writes: > [Deleted commentary on how ISC & SCO UNIX support stinks > relative to support from WordPerfect for their DOS package.] >I just can't let this one go by ... The whole point is that UNIX is >phenomenally more complex *in its potential uses* than even a complex >word processing system like WP. The cost of support is not in >development [even so, it's misleading to state that "90% of UNIX >comes complete from AT&T ... the sheer maintenance, version control, >repackaging, publishing and so on for over 60MB of source is difficult >enough even if you don't change one line. To change 10% makes it >a very major deal]. >The cost of support is driven up nearly exponentially (actually, the >factorial) as the number of degrees of freedom in usage and capability >goes up. Running a single program in a hermetically sealed environment, >like WP on DOS, is a fairly straightforward support task. UNIX has >hundreds of utilities, many of which are as complex, or more so, than WP. >Supporting UNIX means supporting each of those utilities in possible >permutations with multiple simultaneous users. Just being a system >administrator in UNIX is a major, major support issue. Picking a printer >file from WP just doesn't compare. I fully disagree with these statements. By your definition, a C compiler product would be inpossible to support since there are infinite degrees of freedom of usage. Rubbish. From the tone, I gather that you've never supported a large DOS product and probably have not supported a large Unix product. I've done both. Though a percentage of the support problems in the unix environment may be of the "RTFM" genre, I'd bet a majority concern bogosities in the documentation and/or the system. Fully documenting init, getty and uucp and the idiosyncrasies of the termio implementation to the extent ISC has the lp facility would eliminate many of the problems. Having the install and/or kernel startup code test hardware and issue error messages for incompatable hardware would solve more. Though DOS support may look simple on the outside ("Why, it's only a program loader, after all" I've heard many unix people say.) I can assure you that the combination of X different hardware combinations plus Y different versions of DOS plus Z different TSRs and drivers and networks makes Unix support pale in comparison. Try it sometime. But not to belabor the point. You want to talk about programming tools? Good. Take a quick glance through "The C Users' Journal" or "Dr. Dobbs". Over and over are the words "Free Source", "Free Support", "800 number" and in some cases, "Free upgrades". That's what it takes to be a player in the DOS world right now. I hope that becomes what it takes to play in the Unix world before long. What it will take is for someone to perceive a market for a quality Unix product and provide it. We'll flock in droves. As to the claim that DOS products involve less development or documentation than Unix, I just gotta laugh. I look at my Unix shelf and my DOS shelf and compare what documentation comes with ISC (minus the LPI and X stuff that I don't use) and compare it to, say, the docs with Turbo C professional, which I bought at the discount software place for $149. Turbo C wins. If I set the Microsoft Word documentation beside the TC stuff (still less than $500 worth of product) there is no contest. The only way we'll ever get what we want is to demand it and to speak with out pocketbooks. Speak out long and loud. And recommend the product with the best support to your clients. After all, we've heard all these arguments before way back when. I can remember when it was fashionable to say that CP/M support was too expensive to give away. I can remember outrageous prices for buggy software. I can remember when documentation consisted of partial listings reproduced from DecWriter output. (Couldn't print the WHOLE listing; after all, that's a trade secret) I can remember when people said "There's no demand for a Pascal Compiler. After all, users are not programmers." Then along comes Boreland and spoils all the fun with a $49 Pascal compiler with good documentation and support. The rest is history. I just wonder how obscure Unix would remain if someone offered a $399 or $499 Unix complete, with documentation and no unbundling and tagged on a non-toll free support number? I just wonder if the Boreland Effect would reoccur. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | "To be engaged in opposing wrong offers but {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd | a slender guarantee of being right."
mike@bria.AIX (Mike Stefanik/78125) (01/07/91)
Sorry, netpeople, but I just gotta let off some steam here ... In article <5640@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: >I fully disagree with these statements. By your definition, a C compiler >product would be inpossible to support since there are infinite degrees >of freedom of usage. Rubbish. From the tone, I gather that you've never >supported a large DOS product and probably have not supported a large >Unix product. [...] >Though DOS support may look simple on the outside ("Why, it's only a program >loader, after all" I've heard many unix people say.) I can assure you that >the combination of X different hardware combinations plus Y different >versions of DOS plus Z different TSRs and drivers and networks makes Unix >support pale in comparison. Try it sometime. DOS *is* nothing but a program loader that has some perveted concept of a file system, but we don't have to go into that now ... :-) I have supported both DOS and UNIX, and there is no way in &#!@ that I would even begin to think that DOS was more complex than UNIX! The only thorn in your side, DOS-wise, is the TSR ... and they are simple enough to deal with: remove those *abominations* from AUTOEXEC.BAT and try it again. UNIX is several orders of magnitude more complex than DOS (regardless of what you heap on that aged dog). >But not to belabor the point. You want to talk about programming tools? >Good. Take a quick glance through "The C Users' Journal" or "Dr. Dobbs". >Over and over are the words "Free Source", "Free Support", "800 number" >and in some cases, "Free upgrades". That's what it takes to be a player >in the DOS world right now. [...] That is because the market is *flooded* with tons of cheap DOS trash, and at one point, the only way for a company to stand out was to offer "free support". It ain't really free, but regardless, you get what you pay for. > [...] I hope that becomes what it takes to play >in the Unix world before long. What it will take is for someone to >perceive a market for a quality Unix product and provide it. We'll flock >in droves. We develop what I see as a *quality* UNIX product, and we charge for support, and will continue to do so. Again, you get what you pay for. If you're paying nothing for support, then you're probably not getting anything much out of it. Many of our customers are also DOS users; although they may moan and groan, they have repeatedly told me that we provide the best support of *any* computer product that they use, and they feel that they *are* getting their money's worth. >As to the claim that DOS products involve less development or documentation >than Unix, I just gotta laugh. I look at my Unix shelf and my DOS shelf >and compare what documentation comes with ISC (minus the LPI and X stuff >that I don't use) and compare it to, say, the docs with Turbo C professional, >which I bought at the discount software place for $149. Turbo C wins. >If I set the Microsoft Word documentation beside the TC stuff (still less >than $500 worth of product) there is no contest. Because the documentation is thin on your shelf, don't generalize that to include the entire UNIX world. Personally, my shelf is groaning under the weight of my manuals (ever see the full AIX 3.1 set? The commands alone take up 3 3.5 inch manuals). And let's be fair here; the Pro Turbo C set just doesn't include manuals on Turbo C as you imply ... there are also manuals on their assembler and symbolic debugger lumped in there. >The only way we'll ever get what we want is to demand it and to speak >with out pocketbooks. Speak out long and loud. And recommend the >product with the best support to your clients. After all, we've heard >all these arguments before way back when. I can remember when it was >fashionable to say that CP/M support was too expensive to give away. I >can remember outrageous prices for buggy software. I can remember when >documentation consisted of partial listings reproduced from DecWriter >output. (Couldn't print the WHOLE listing; after all, that's a trade >secret) [...] The UNIX manuals that *I* have seen as of late, and the application manuals that we produce (and those of other companies) are hardly listings on a DECWriter! >I just wonder how obscure Unix would remain if someone offered a $399 or >$499 Unix complete, with documentation and no unbundling and tagged on >a non-toll free support number? I just wonder if the Boreland Effect >would reoccur. A remark as stupid as this one doesn't even deserve a response, but I have to say just this ... OBSCURE! OBSCURE!! You are DARING to even THINK than UNIX is an *OBSCURE* operating system?!? Sheesh! Dig your head out of the ground and smell the fresh air, pal. This is the 90's! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Stefanik, Systems Engineer (JOAT), Briareus Corporation UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike