newsome@ug.cs.dal.ca (SEX MANIAC IN TRAINING) (11/24/90)
I am interested in starting to use Unix/Xenix or a derivitive on my 386 PC. I would also need to maintain the ability to run MS-DOS based Programs. (Usix VP/ix or something similar?) I would also like to use the X-Windows system on this system (I currently have the mouse and graphics needed.) Can anybody advise on the following: 1) The amount of Disk Space for the OS? 2) The availability of Unix/Xenix etc from companies (ie who makes reliable versions.) 3) Where can I get X-Windows systems and cost involved. Hardware required? Thanks -- | BRENT G. NEWSOME | Mail Addresses: | | 11 Whynette Place | ENVOY 100/INET 2000: P.NEWSOME | | Dartmouth, Nova Scotia | UUCP: bnewsome@ac.dal | | Canada, B2W 3H1. | UUCP: newsome@ug.cs.dal.ca |
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (11/26/90)
In article <1990Nov23.182943.21094@cs.dal.ca> newsome@ug.cs.dal.ca (SEX MANIAC IN TRAINING) writes: [ he wants DOS under UNIX and X ] | Can anybody advise on the following: 1) The amount of Disk Space for the OS? | 2) The availability of Unix/Xenix etc from companies (ie who makes reliable | versions.) 3) Where can I get X-Windows systems and cost involved. Hardware | required? Two things come to mind, OpenDeskTop and Dell V.4. Therefore: 1) ODT comes on about 60 floppies. By careful selection you can run on an 80 MB drive, but 100+ is better. DellV4 comes on 150MB tapes only at the moment (since you can make 60MB releases, they could, just a marketing decision). DV4 takes about 100MB for a start. 2) I don't see either of the companies or their products as unreliable. Both have some warts. See below. 3) Both include X in the base price. Both list just under $1k, ODT is discounted as bit, as it's been on the market longer. Very quick and dirty comparison. ODT features X11R3, an obsolete version of X which runs virtually nothing of the net software. DV4 currently lacks xmkmf, which makes porting anthing painful but possible. ODT includes MOTIF, Athena widgets are available if you sign a non-disclosure (yes on public domain code). DV4 includes MOTIF, OpenLook, TWM, UWM (yecch) and will compile tvtwm with no changes but beating the makefile. ODT supports a reasonable bunch of displays and modes. DV4 supports 640x480x16 (but better stuff is in beta, etc). ODT doesn't include a developments set, you can get one for something like $1500. When you do it cross compiles to OS/2, DOS, Xenix[23]86, etc. DV4 includes the AT&T compiler, and actually doesn't do a bad job. GCC will be available for V.4 soon if it isn't already. Multiuser upgrade for ODT is $1k+, DV4 is $300. ODT has C2 security, DV2 doesn't, but has shadow password. Both companies consider this a feature. I would gladly pay another $200-300 for ODT with the security ripped out, but if you are running a system under constant attack by spies or hackers it has some benefits. To run X on an SX you really want a 387. I added a Cyrix and found things 5-10x faster. Although X11R4 isn't f.p. intensive, the raw f.p. speed goes up by over 100x, so a 5x speedup occurs if the program uses even 4% f.p. You will not run X with any useful speed in less than 8MB. I've added another 4 and it didn't help without the FPU, I'll have to try again now. Memory is cheap, use a bunch. Even a 33MHz 486 is a total pig with 4MB. No system which give pleasant use of X is a "bottom end system." Documentation is better with ODT, but both systems have man pages online. System admin is vastly different between the two systems. Xenix is currently a bit more automated and documented. Hope this is useful, I'm sure someone will describe the comparable ESIX product, which lists for $825. I haven't got the experience with it, and I believe that the package lacks NFS and SLIP, so was not anything I evaluated. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
palowoda@fiver (Bob Palowoda) (11/26/90)
From article <2389@sixhub.UUCP>, by davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr): > In article <1990Nov23.182943.21094@cs.dal.ca> newsome@ug.cs.dal.ca (SEX MANIAC IN TRAINING) writes: > [ he wants DOS under UNIX and X ] > > | Can anybody advise on the following: 1) The amount of Disk Space for the OS? > | 2) The availability of Unix/Xenix etc from companies (ie who makes reliable > | versions.) 3) Where can I get X-Windows systems and cost involved. Hardware > | required? > > Two things come to mind, OpenDeskTop and Dell V.4. Therefore: > > 1) ODT comes on about 60 floppies. By careful selection you can run on > an 80 MB drive, but 100+ is better. DellV4 comes on 150MB tapes only at > the moment (since you can make 60MB releases, they could, just a > marketing decision). DV4 takes about 100MB for a start. I really don't understand why you compare 3.2 version of UNIX to a 4.0 version of UNIX. I beleive the file system is a little different between the two. ODT is 3.2 isn't it? Why SCO's marketing ever gave it that name I'll never know. Every time I think of it I picture some desk that has a trap door in it and you open it up to take a look inside. > 3) Both include X in the base price. Both list just under $1k, ODT is > discounted as bit, as it's been on the market longer. I thought Dell was selling UNIX before SCO. > Very quick and dirty comparison. > > ODT features X11R3, an obsolete version of X which runs virtually > nothing of the net software. DV4 currently lacks xmkmf, which makes > porting anthing painful but possible. Ahh so we can call it SCO's X11R3. > ODT includes MOTIF, Athena widgets are available if you sign a > non-disclosure (yes on public domain code). DV4 includes MOTIF, > OpenLook, TWM, UWM (yecch) and will compile tvtwm with no changes but > beating the makefile. Does DOS run in a window with both products? > ODT supports a reasonable bunch of displays and modes. DV4 supports > 640x480x16 (but better stuff is in beta, etc). What about Dell's 3.2 UNIX does it support about as many modes as SCO X11? > ODT doesn't include a developments set, you can get one for something > like $1500. When you do it cross compiles to OS/2, DOS, Xenix[23]86, > etc. DV4 includes the AT&T compiler, and actually doesn't do a bad job. > GCC will be available for V.4 soon if it isn't already. It appears the the DOS market is moveing to Windows apps. Does any one out there know if the Windows Development Kit runs under SCO's development system? Or has anyone been able to run Windows 3.0 under any version of 3.2 UNIX. > Multiuser upgrade for ODT is $1k+, DV4 is $300. I think SCO has to pay the other addin packages that come in Open DeskTop. So it looks like a portion goes over to Ingres and Secureware. I beleive X11R3 was written multiuser already. > ODT has C2 security, DV2 doesn't, but has shadow password. Both > companies consider this a feature. I would gladly pay another $200-300 > for ODT with the security ripped out, but if you are running a system > under constant attack by spies or hackers it has some benefits. I beleive you mean DV4 up there. Or DV3? Anyways it is a sad day when buyers are willing to pay more to take a feature out of product. C2 is not part of UNIX. It's part of the goverment. I like ISC idea you buy it in a different package. What's wrong with that. > You will not run X with any useful speed in less than 8MB. I've added > another 4 and it didn't help without the FPU, I'll have to try again > now. Memory is cheap, use a bunch. Even a 33MHz 486 is a total pig with > 4MB. So is ESIX. > Hope this is useful, I'm sure someone will describe the comparable > ESIX product, which lists for $825. I haven't got the experience with > it, and I believe that the package lacks NFS and SLIP, so was not > anything I evaluated. The $825 price is the unlimited version. I beleive you where talking about two user version of Dell and SCO. ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda palowoda@fiver | *Home of Fiver BBS* Home {sun}!ys2!fiver!palowoda | 415-623-8809 1200/2400 {pacbell}!indetech!fiver!palowoda | An XBBS System Work {sun,pyramid,decwrl}!megatest!palowoda| 415-623-8806 1200/2400/19.2k TB+
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (11/27/90)
palowoda@fiver (Bob Palowoda) writes: > Anyways it is a sad day when >buyers are willing to pay more to take a feature out of product. C2 is >not part of UNIX. It's part of the goverment. I like ISC idea you buy >it in a different package. What's wrong with that. Let's be precise here. C2 is not "part of the government". It is a certified (or certifiable) level of security, which many systems must now meet to qualify for government use. Of course, many in the commercial sector require that level of security, or higher. Apropos this thread, ISC offers their own family of integrated UN*X components and applications (the Architech series). UNIX Today! ran a comparison of Dell's 3.2 and SCO's ODT some months back. (Can't give an issue date without searching, since UT! doesn't index.)
tin@smsc.sony.com (Tin Le) (11/28/90)
In article <2389@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <1990Nov23.182943.21094@cs.dal.ca> newsome@ug.cs.dal.ca (SEX MANIAC IN TRAINING) writes: > [ he wants DOS under UNIX and X ] > >| Can anybody advise on the following: 1) The amount of Disk Space for the OS? >| 2) The availability of Unix/Xenix etc from companies (ie who makes reliable >| versions.) 3) Where can I get X-Windows systems and cost involved. Hardware >| required? > > Two things come to mind, OpenDeskTop and Dell V.4. Therefore: > > [discusses ODT and Dell V.4...] > > ODT features X11R3, an obsolete version of X which runs virtually >nothing of the net software. DV4 currently lacks xmkmf, which makes >porting anthing painful but possible. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ xmkmf is just a simple shell script that calls imake with the correct flags. I've seen people used alias (in csh) and shell functions (in sh/ksh) in place of xmkmf. csh alias: alias xmkmf 'imake -DUseInstalled -I/usr/lib/X11/config' k/sh function: xmkmf() { imake -DUseInstalled -I/usr/lib/X11/config } Of course, you need to edit the '-I' flag to point to the correct directory if your site has the X11 config directory in another place. For those of you who want the "real"(TM) xmkmf, here it is. #-------------------------------------------------------------------- #!/bin/sh # # generate a Makefile from an Imakefile from inside or outside the sources! # usage="usage: $0 [top_of_sources_pathname [current_directory]]" topdir= curdir=. case $# in 0) ;; 1) topdir=$1 ;; 2) topdir=$1 curdir=$2 ;; *) echo "$usage" 1>&2; exit 1 ;; esac case "$topdir" in -*) echo "$usage" 1>&2; exit 1 ;; esac if [ -f Makefile ]; then echo mv Makefile Makefile.bak mv Makefile Makefile.bak fi if [ "$topdir" = "" ]; then args="-DUseInstalled "-I/usr/lib/X11/config else args="-I$topdir/config -DTOPDIR=$topdir -DCURDIR=$curdir" fi echo imake $args imake $args #--------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Tin -- .---------------------------------------------------------------------- . Tin Le Work Internet: tin@smsc.Sony.COM . Sony Microsystems UUCP: {uunet,mips}!sonyusa!tin . Work: (408) 944-4157 Home Internet: tin@szebra.uu.net
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (11/28/90)
In article <1990Nov26.010554.574@fiver> palowoda@fiver (Bob Palowoda) writes: | From article <2389@sixhub.UUCP>, by davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr): | > In article <1990Nov23.182943.21094@cs.dal.ca> newsome@ug.cs.dal.ca (SEX MANIAC IN TRAINING) writes: | > [ he wants DOS under UNIX and X ] | I really don't understand why you compare 3.2 version of UNIX to | a 4.0 version of UNIX. I beleive the file system is a little different | between the two. ODT is 3.2 isn't it? Why SCO's marketing ever gave | it that name I'll never know. Every time I think of it I picture some | desk that has a trap door in it and you open it up to take a look inside. He wants DOS under UNIX and X. Therefore I mentioned two products which provide it. Hopefully I made the diferences clear. | | > 3) Both include X in the base price. Both list just under $1k, ODT is | > discounted as bit, as it's been on the market longer. | | I thought Dell was selling UNIX before SCO. ODT has been on the market for over a year. The Dell is just shipping now, although it's been heavily beta tested. | What about Dell's 3.2 UNIX does it support about as many modes as | SCO X11? I don't have the charts or anything here. Dell's v.3 and V.4 X supports their GPX(?) card with tons of re$olution. | It appears the the DOS market is moveing to Windows apps. Does any one | out there know if the Windows Development Kit runs under SCO's development | system? Or has anyone been able to run Windows 3.0 under any version | of 3.2 UNIX. There is a call which is supposed to be used by Windows to determine the CPU type. Unfortunately W3 justs plays with the CPU, and not only doesn't check it right, but doesn't get the right answer. There's a patch for W3 to make it work on VP/ix, I assume it will fix DOSmerge, too, but haven't tried it. No, I am not authorized to give it out. | I beleive you mean DV4 up there. Or DV3? Anyways it is a sad day when | buyers are willing to pay more to take a feature out of product. C2 is | not part of UNIX. It's part of the goverment. I like ISC idea you buy | it in a different package. What's wrong with that. Security is only a feature when you need it. I have set up systems without a password in the system, when there was one user and physical security. I still used a few UIDs just to keep from shooting myself in the foot, though. | The $825 price is the unlimited version. I beleive you where talking | about two user version of Dell and SCO. Correct. But both include NFS which is extra (or was when I priced ESIX) and ODT has an SQL engine, too. They are not identical packages, and for the non-hacker I still like ODT, because it is relatively easy to install and admin, while every review seems to agree that SCO documentation is the best going (that's not a rave review). I can think of reasons to buy any of these products, it's just that you have to weigh the disadvantages of each, and decide which provides all the must haves and offers the shortest list of "wish I had's." -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (11/28/90)
In article <1990Nov27.172500.11891@smsc.sony.com> tin@smsc.sony.com (Tin Le) writes: | xmkmf is just a simple shell script that calls imake with the | correct flags. I've seen people used alias (in csh) and shell | functions (in sh/ksh) in place of xmkmf. You're right in absolute terms, but the flags have to point to a directory which holds the local config files... like saying that all you need for stio is an include statement. After a good bit of hacking I have one which mostly works, in that it produces a Makefile which can be edited to work correctly. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
aris@tabbs.UUCP (Aris Stathakis) (11/29/90)
In <2389@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) writes: >In article <1990Nov23.182943.21094@cs.dal.ca> newsome@ug.cs.dal.ca (SEX MANIAC IN TRAINING) writes: > [ he wants DOS under UNIX and X ] > Two things come to mind, OpenDeskTop and Dell V.4. Therefore: > 1) ODT comes on about 60 floppies. By careful selection you can run on >an 80 MB drive, but 100+ is better. DellV4 comes on 150MB tapes only at >the moment (since you can make 60MB releases, they could, just a >marketing decision). DV4 takes about 100MB for a start. ODT comes on tape too. It comes as version 1.0.1 > ODT supports a reasonable bunch of displays and modes. DV4 supports >640x480x16 (but better stuff is in beta, etc). > ODT doesn't include a developments set, you can get one for something >like $1500. When you do it cross compiles to OS/2, DOS, Xenix[23]86, >etc. DV4 includes the AT&T compiler, and actually doesn't do a bad job. >GCC will be available for V.4 soon if it isn't already. Don't forget ODT includes CodeView debugger too! And the Product Engineering Toolkit (which lets you make 'custom'-installable products) > ODT has C2 security, DV2 doesn't, but has shadow password. Both >companies consider this a feature. I would gladly pay another $200-300 >for ODT with the security ripped out, but if you are running a system >under constant attack by spies or hackers it has some benefits. DV2? You mean maybe DV4? :-) Strange. I was under the impression that AT&T wouldn't let you call your product UNIX V.4 unless you had at least B2 security. I could be wrong though.. Aris -- Aris Stathakis | Bang: ..!uunet!ddsw1!olsa99!tabbs!aris or aris@tabbs.UUCP - - - Disco is to music what Etch-A-Sketch is to art. -
andyc@bucky.intel.com (Andy Crump) (11/29/90)
>>>>> On 26 Nov 90 01:05:54 GMT, palowoda@fiver (Bob Palowoda) said:
Bob> From article <2389@sixhub.UUCP>, by davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr):
Bob> Does DOS run in a window with both products?
Yes. Locus DOS Merge is available for SVR4 (Dell or Intel) and SCO
uses the same product on ODT
--
-- Andy Crump
...!tektronix!reed!littlei!andyc | andyc@littlei.intel.com
...!uunet!littlei!andyc | andyc@littlei.uu.net
Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed here are my own and
not representive of Intel Corportation.aris@tabbs.UUCP (Aris Stathakis) (11/30/90)
In <156@raysnec.UUCP> shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes: >palowoda@fiver (Bob Palowoda) writes: >> Anyways it is a sad day when >>buyers are willing to pay more to take a feature out of product. C2 is >>not part of UNIX. It's part of the goverment. I like ISC idea you buy >>it in a different package. What's wrong with that. What's wrong with that is that it isn't C2. The C2 standard states that it must be included in the product, and you cannot have the same product without the C2 security - or else it does not constitute C2. Aris -- Aris Stathakis | Bang: ..!uunet!ddsw1!olsa99!tabbs!aris or aris@tabbs.UUCP - UNIX is like sex - if you've tried it, you can't get along without it. - - If you haven't you really have no idea what the fuss is all about! -
palowoda@fiver (Bob Palowoda) (11/30/90)
From article <2318@tabbs.UUCP>, by aris@tabbs.UUCP (Aris Stathakis): > In <156@raysnec.UUCP> shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes: > >>palowoda@fiver (Bob Palowoda) writes: > >>> Anyways it is a sad day when >>>buyers are willing to pay more to take a feature out of product. C2 is >>>not part of UNIX. It's part of the goverment. I like ISC idea you buy >>>it in a different package. What's wrong with that. > > What's wrong with that is that it isn't C2. The C2 standard states that > it must be included in the product, and you cannot have the same product > without the C2 security - or else it does not constitute C2. What is the rationale behind this? ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda palowoda@fiver | *Home of Fiver BBS* Home {sun}!ys2!fiver!palowoda | 415-623-8809 1200/2400 {pacbell}!indetech!fiver!palowoda | An XBBS System Work {sun,pyramid,decwrl}!megatest!palowoda| 415-623-8806 1200/2400/19.2k TB+
tim@delluk.uucp (Tim Wright) (12/03/90)
In <1990Nov30.025126.12879@fiver> palowoda@fiver (Bob Palowoda) writes: >From article <2318@tabbs.UUCP>, by aris@tabbs.UUCP (Aris Stathakis): >> In <156@raysnec.UUCP> shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes: >> >>>palowoda@fiver (Bob Palowoda) writes: >> >>>> Anyways it is a sad day when >>>>buyers are willing to pay more to take a feature out of product. C2 is >>>>not part of UNIX. It's part of the goverment. I like ISC idea you buy >>>>it in a different package. What's wrong with that. >> >> What's wrong with that is that it isn't C2. The C2 standard states that >> it must be included in the product, and you cannot have the same product >> without the C2 security - or else it does not constitute C2. > What is the rationale behind this? Not sure. The C2 security for SCO 3.2 was not part of the product anyway. It was glued on and the glue shows in places. It does certain things which are not necessary for C2 (luids) and as far as I can see misses out slightly on others (aren't you supposed to have ACLs - the group stuff doesn't really cut it even if you had BSD/POSIX-style multiple-group membership). With reference to Security for V.4, no you do not have to have any security level to call your V.4 system UNIX. The AT&T code supplied is not C2 or B2 etc. rated. I believe AT&T are producing a version and I think it's called System V/MLS - somebody will probably know better :-) As has been pointed out, MOST people running unix do NOT want any higher level security than is already provided. It only gets in the way. I get the distinct feeling that if you want "high" levels of security, you shouldn't be running unix in the first place. Any comments ? Tim -- Tim Wright, Dell Computer Corp. (UK) | Email address Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 1RW | Domain: tim@dell.co.uk Tel: +44-344-860456 | Uucp: ...!ukc!delluk!tim "What's the problem? You've got an IQ of six thousand, haven't you?"
mason@oct1.UUCP (David Mason) (12/04/90)
In article <2318@tabbs.UUCP> aris@tabbs.UUCP (Aris Stathakis) writes: >What's wrong with that is that it isn't C2. The C2 standard states that >it must be included in the product, and you cannot have the same product >without the C2 security - or else it does not constitute C2. I'm having a hard time swallowing this one. In the list of optional extensions for ISC 2.2 is the Security Extension, which "contains files needed to raise .... [ 2.2 ] .... to C2". (As an aside, what a BRILLIANT idea to make this and *Optional* Extension. Viva, ISC, Viva). But according to Aris' statement, this is not correct, so ISC just wasted N (where N is a large number) man hours porting this extension. My faith in ISC is such that I cannot believe that they would do that. Aris, can you back up your claims with some quotes from a definitive reference, such as the orange book? -------------------- David Mason | "Strange the mind, mason@oct1.UUCP | that very fiery particle, "olsa99!oct1!mason"@ddsw1.MCS.COM | Should let itself be snuffed out ...!ddsw1!olsa99!oct1!mason | by an article." Byron
lee@wang.com (Lee Story) (12/14/90)
---------------------
This is specifically in response to Mr. Schwake's comment that C2 security
isn't "part of the government", but rather "a certain level of security".
(Perhaps the general discussion belongs in another group, but......
I must agree with the former poster (Davidsen?). The "orange book" DoD
security mandates certain technical ways of achieving a secure system, to
wit, compartmentalization, access control lists, etc. (not all of which
come into play at the C2 level); while this *determines* "a certain level
of security", it is more than that. For example, encryption is not
considered acceptable for most purposes: if it's too weak, the "enemy"
can break it; if too strong, the National Security Agency can't. The
same people who determine these standards want to try to make it a crime
to send public domain information (e.g., DES implementations) to other
countries. (I'm planning to send everyone I know in Europe and Latin
America a copy of the requisite pages of Tanenbaum's book for Christmas.)
Now I admit that a very few commercial users may have the same sort of
concerns as DoD (for example, funds transfer systems), but the majority
of us would have to be wholly irrational to take on the additional
complexity of DoD-style security in exchange for the marginal improvement
offered. The favorite ploys of vendors are:
(1) to imply "if it's good enough for the Department of Defense, it's
good enough for you";
(2) to offer "C2 (or higher) -certifiable" systems without actually
having (any intention to) certify them, thus leaving the way open
for any number of breaches, especially from below (in old system
software -- it's still basically the AT&T System V code base, with
"hooks" and "fixes" here and there).
My company sells SCO Unix and ODT. I think they are good products.
We use and sell it not only on PCs but on i486-based timesharing systems.
I don't know ANY developer who wouldn't pay a few bucks out of their
one pockets to have the additional security "feature" completely removed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please don't hold Wang Labs or Rick Miller or for that matter
anyone else except me responsible for these damfool opinions .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Story (lee@wang.com)
Wang Laboratories, Inc.
Lowell Massachusetts 01851lws@comm.wang.com (Lyle Seaman) (12/14/90)
lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes: >This is specifically in response to Mr. Schwake's comment that C2 security >isn't "part of the government", but rather "a certain level of security". >(Perhaps the general discussion belongs in another group, but...... Yes, alt.security or misc.security. And you will find that the consensus is: you can't call a system C2-secure unless it has been so certified by the NCSC (part of the government). [ ... ] >My company sells SCO Unix and ODT. I think they are good products. >We use and sell it not only on PCs but on i486-based timesharing systems. >I don't know ANY developer who wouldn't pay a few bucks out of their >one pockets to have the additional security "feature" completely removed. Speaking as an administrator, not a developer, I too must agree. That feature would be bad enough if it worked reliably, but when it breaks, it's worse. If most sites _needed_ to prevent users from reading (eg), /usr/spool/lp/model/PSstandard, then I could understand. On the other hand, I know users that have needed to do so to figure out the options (source code, the ultimate documentation), but were prevented from doing so. -- Lyle Wang lws@comm.wang.com 508 967 2322 Lowell, MA, USA uunet!comm.wang.com!lws The scum always rises to the top.