Floppyshop 2/Floppyshop - 2.zip/Floppyshop - 2.iso/diskmags/0022-3.564/dmg-0080/844.txt

Text File | 1997-04-16 | 10KB | 227 lines

=========================================================================

INFO-ATARI16 Digest         Thu, 21 Dec 89       Volume 89 : Issue  844

Today's Topics:
                Atari Unix version for the TT, when???
                Chaos Strikes Back - Monitor Problem?
                             spreadsheets
             USENET -> GEnie uplink now working (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 89 08:11:32 GMT
From: mcsun!cernvax!chx400!ethz![e-mail]  (Marco Zollinger)
Subject: Atari Unix version for the TT, when???
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In Europe the Atari TT has to be released in january of the next Year
with the TOS 030 inside, but several previews of the machine speak about
an inproved version of the TT running Unix. Is that true? When will the
new machine be available? How much will it cost? And, most important,
will it be possible to run TOS as a Unix task?

I'll be grateful if somebody at Atari Corp. could answer my question

Greetings to everybody in the net

Marco Zollinger             [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 89 09:47:26 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Lez Oxley)
Subject: Chaos Strikes Back - Monitor Problem?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

(In the UK) I received my copy of CHAOS in the post today.

I haven't had a chance to have a proper go at it yet but I was curious
about the label on the front of the box.  This says that my version is
only compatible with 60 hertz colour monitors.  Luckily it works with my
Fidelity Colour Television Scart RGB Monitor but I guess if the
labelling is correct a few people with only 50 hertz monitors could be
in for a shock.  There has been talk in this group recently about 50/60
hertz monitor problems.

So my advice is check your monitor and if possible try before you buy!

Is this going to be a significant problem or am I making a mountain out
of a molehill?








--
Lez Oxley, Administration, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RH, UK
Tel: [phone] x3808 Fax: [phone] JANET: [e-mail]
ARPA: [e-mail]
BITNET: [e-mail]      UUCP: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 89 19:17:24 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu![e-mail]
Subject: spreadsheets
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

>
> PS It came with VIP Professional. It's lousy. I hate it. Please don't
 recommend
> it. I mean, a piece of software with a list price of 130 quid that can't work
> with a hard disk?
>
YOU ARE WRONG.  In spite of its problems, VIP is useful; i use it almost
daily --- FROM MY HARD DRIVE.  It is easy to set up.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 89 17:59:52 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!ccnysci![e-mail]  (Patt
 Haring)
Subject: USENET -> GEnie uplink now working
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Hughes) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Diane Barlow Close)
 writes:
>> What I object to the most is the fact that the link is one way (and will
>> stay that way due to GEnie's commercial nature).  I don't like Usenet being
>> ``raped'' to supply GEnie's commercial pockets.  If GEnie is that ``tapped
>> out'' for knowledge that they are desperate enough to plunder Usenet, then
>> perhaps GEnie should be disbanded.
[   ]
>Now, anyone who is on GEnie and reads this can decide they would rather
>pay a different provider of service.  For example, in Seattle there are at
>least three companies that will provide Usenet access for a price.

Isn't only a matter of time before the NIXPUB listings are posted to
any/all of the GEnie conferences?  They already appear on Compu$erve
and many uses on our local public access site here in New York
actually got information about the site from commercial services
as well as from publications they had to pay for.

Isn't it true that once a user spends a few hours downloading files
fromm a service he/she has to pay $5/hr to use and then discovers that
the same files can be downloaded form a public access site for a mere
$5/month, the thought would occur to that user that said files could
be more easily and quickly obtained using less $$?

I formerly worked with a lawyer whose personal reputation as well as
that of his law firm was being bandied about in "American Lawyer"
(also known as the "Inquirer" of the legal profession) and,
surprisingly, he was not, in the least bit, dismayed when he read the
articles and, in fact, he said "as long as they spell my name and the
firm's name correctly, it doesn't bother me at all - any publicity is
good publicity!"

Now, the question, who, if anyone or, what, if any corporation, could
ever control the information flowing through UseNET? They could filter
it, and edit it but as long as users can dial in to public access
sites they can't stop it or control it.




--
Patt Haring
[e-mail]
          -=- Every child smiles in the same language. -=-

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 89 18:36:50 GMT
From: giza.cis.ohio-state.edu![e-mail]  (Karl Kleinpaste)
Subject: USENET -> GEnie uplink now working
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] writes:
   What is wrong with GEnie making the data available?
   Is it that GEnie makes a profit? ...
   Is it that GEnie charges for access to the data? ...
   Is it that GEnie somehow prevents free access to the data? ...

None of these are the problem.  Well, perhaps the 3rd, in a way.

Portal, the WELL, and a few dozen fee-based, NIXPUB-advertised sites
all charge somehow, usually by the hour or month.  So does UUNET,
though I believe that UUNET is still formally a non-profit entity.  (I
could be wrong, though; I haven't thought about it much for quite a
while.)  So charging per se is not the problem, nor is the profit they
gain via charging.

The problem is that they are not sharing back with the rest of us.  As
Steve Bellovin said in a note to me last March, one should "hold out
for symmetry -- arrangements where they get the Usenet feed, but don't
feed back, aren't cricket."  (For those [few, I hope] who might be
unaware, Steve is one of those responsible for the original
shell-script-based implementation of what we now call Usenet, back in
1979.)  UUNET exists for the express purpose of getting people to
share; people on Portal and the WELL can always post.  Not so with GEnie.

_That_ is the problem - that they do not, cannot, share.  All other
things about them would make them a more-or-less ordinary net.citizen,
but the lack of even the _potential_ for reciprocation is what makes
the link undesirable.  From what we've been told about the link, GEnie
has absorbed Usenet postings into its "anthology copyright" (thereby, of
course, making their copyright highly suspect as to its validity).

Also, as Brad mentioned, the lack of an email link is a really serious
problem.  Individuals on the other side of the gateway can't be
reached at this point.  Only by broadcasting to the Known Universe (of
comp.sys.atari.st) can any single person be found on the opposite side
of the gateway, no matter which side any given user is on.  This is
not a good idea on the Usenet.  Standing in a crowded room and trying
to have a private conversation with someone 30 yards away by shouting
at one another is, shall we say, suboptimal.  You wouldn't want to do
it at the office, you wouldn't want to do it at a party, and you
shouldn't do it on electronic networks.  It would have been far
preferable to build an email gateway first, and only then implement a
news gateway.

If the link must stay (and I wish it would either go away or convert
to 2-way), it is imperative that an email gateway be built
immediately, without weird, hackish addressing schemes using extra
fake headers and so forth.  This can be done, and it's not even
difficult, at least from this Internet side.  (The amount of support
from the GEnie side that would be required, I can't even guess.)

--Karl

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 89 18:17:08 GMT
From: rochester!kodak![e-mail]  (Bruce Nelson)
Subject: USENET -> GEnie uplink now working
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Several posters have said words to the effect "Is GEnie that tapped out that
they must raid USEnet?"

Ihe link wasn't GEnie's idea ... it was Dave Small's. And the idea was
dissemination of information. Not to financially reward GE or Dave Small,
or anyone else.

Oftentimes, the "Net's" postings are the best source of information on
some subjects. I believe Dave's only intent was to spread the wealth of
good, hard-to-otherwise-find, information with a segment of Atari ST
owners who would be otherwise unable to access the information.

There's a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo which at this point prevents a true
two-way link. Maybe someday in the future, the problem can be overcome.

But in the interests of keeping good information flowing to Atari owners
who aren't in a position to access the "Net", I don't see why we should
prevent them from reading our postings, wherever they may be able to
access them - here or on GEnie.

Standard disclaimers apply.
Bruce Nelson

------------------------------

End of INFO-ATARI16 Digest V89 Issue #844
*****************************************