Slashdot Mirror

I found the DDD that was mentioned in the original post - it's called the Data Display Debugger and looks really interesting.

However, it also appears to work with JDB as well as a number of other debuggers - perhaps that's what you meant in the original post when you listed nothing with it? Though from the original post it seemed to me you were indicating it was not availiable with Java.

I'll be moderated down for this, as are all views which don't seem to match the general consensus.

No you won't, and no they're not.

But a great majority of patents are not filed for enforcement. Generally, patents are filed to prevent a competitor from doing it first. If you believe that companies who patent are evil, you're being naive. It's part of modern business, just like the endless lawsuits, and other related nonsense, but you can live, in disbelief, and post to Slashdot comments about how Amazon is patenting air, or whatever else, but perhaps you need to run a company that competes globally and see that it is probably the only safe way to protect yourself.

If you don't patent it first, someone else will, and sue you into oblivion.

This would be a good point, were it not for the fact that Amazon has by now got a history of using patents offensively. In fact, the Boycott Amazon page goes some way to acknowledge this:

Foolish government policies gave Amazon the opportunity--but an opportunity is not an excuse. Amazon made the choice to obtain this patent, and the choice to use it in court for aggression. The ultimate moral responsibility for Amazon's actions lies with Amazon's executives.

Realistically, would anyone have complained if Amazon had not started trying to enfore their patent? Off course not. This is even is spite of the fact that even the pontential of a lawsuit can and often does have a devastating inhibiting effect to a business.

Anyone with a certain minimum of knowledge about how computers and / or the internet works knows exactly how preposterous the one-click patent is. This patent is no different in that respect. The difference is that this patent is so much more blindingly obvious that anyone should be able to see why, with minimal rethoric required. This ought to make it a lot easier to fight the patent in court, and let's hope that Amazon's competitors do just that.

The state of the US Patent Office has been long lamented, in places such as the GNU website and the League for Programming Freedom. I personally believe that although some of the examples cited there, such as the use of XOR to highlit information on a bitmapped screen in an easily reverisble way, are, believe it or not, not sufficently obvious to the population at large that the average man and woman can be easily convinced.

Off course, being non-obvious to the average person is a subset of the legal requirements to obtain a patent--theoretically, a new patent may not be obvious, even if only to experts in the field. However, it has been obvious for a long time that the US Patent Office is blindingly incompetent in this regard. Maybe this time, we will have our day in court, and win it too.

Until then, I suggest that we all chip in and make a link to the Boycot Amazon page. Have you emailed Amazon to tell them what you think yet? I have.

Anyone with a certain minimum of knowledge about how computers and / or the internet works knows exactly how preposterous the one-click patent is. This patent is no different in that respect. The difference is that this patent is so much more blindingly obvious that anyone should be able to see why, with minimal rethoric required. This ought to make it a lot easier to fight the patent in court, and let's hope that Amazon's competitors do just that.

The state of the US Patent Office has been long lamented, in places such as the GNU website and the League for Programming Freedom. I personally believe that although some of the examples cited there, such as the use of XOR to highlit information on a bitmapped screen in an easily reverisble way, are, believe it or not, not sufficently obvious to the population at large that the average man and woman can be easily convinced.

Off course, being non-obvious to the average person is a subset of the legal requirements to obtain a patent--theoretically, a new patent may not be obvious, even if only to experts in the field. However, it has been obvious for a long time that the US Patent Office is blindingly incompetent in this regard. Maybe this time, we will have our day in court, and win it too.

Until then, I suggest that we all chip in and make a link to the Boycot Amazon page. Have you emailed Amazon to tell them what you think yet? I have.

I really used to buy all sorts of books from amazon, they always had a very nice web site and an extremely comprehensive supply of books. After these fiascos, I am NOT going to buy from them any more. Richard Stallman's "Boycott Amazon" Essay is a great location to start to find out what to do. I know this was brought up in prior Amazon discussions, but just as a reminder... I don't agree with Mr. Stallman's philosophies totally, but I sure agree with him on the Amazon issue!

From the GPL licence article 6:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

2) These changes are made available to anyone who wants them, as required under GPL. Of course, nobody wants them. They patent the innovation, anyway.

AFAIK this is not possible because of the GPL under which Linux is released. You can't modify a piece of GPL'd software and then go patenting it. This would violate the GPL.

Nope, I dont think the GPL has EVER been tested in court, positivly not in a major lawsuit. Hence it would be a good thing if this would go to court, as there is still some insecurity to if it actually holds up. And if you read it, you will soon see that it is very clearly not written by a lawyer - it's less than 10 pages long! Compare this to the license that came with the bonusdisc for my Holywood+ DVD-card - it was actually 90 pages long(Soo thats the reason DVDs can store more data than a CD - To fit the ever-expanding license agreements).

One thing that makes me uncomfortable abot GNU is it's very subtle left-wing propaganda, for instance this quote from the emacs documentaion:

Copyleft
A copyleft is a notice giving the public legal permission to redistribute a program or other work of art. Copylefts are used by left-wing programmers to promote freedom and cooperation, just as copyrights are used by right-wing programmers to gain power over other people. The particular form of copyleft used by the GNU project is called the GNU General Public License. See section GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE.

I mean, REALLY! A lot of people contributing to GNU software aren't left-wing at all. I for instance simply feel that some software (for instance the OS, devtools, etc.) should be free (speach, not beer) in order to promote innovation and competition.

Sorry if the last part of this post was offtopic, but I just felt I needed to rant. Why is there no RANT-tag defined in HTML?

In order to have the right to distribute GPL-covered binaries, you are required to make the source freely available.

Note that it isn't the user's right to have the source, it's your responsibility to provide it. If you do not provide it, you are not complying with the GPL. If you distribute the software without complying with the GPL, you are breaking the law.

It's that simple.

There's a definition (I think) of this on the GNU web page. They provide a license list, and a section on licensing free software. Note that this is only part of the philosophy page, so you may want to dig a bit deeper into there.

Hope that helped.

There's a definition (I think) of this on the GNU web page. They provide a license list, and a section on licensing free software. Note that this is only part of the philosophy page, so you may want to dig a bit deeper into there.

Hope that helped.

For example, the GNU C Compiler's FAQ includes an entry detailing the available workarounds. Other compilers are similar (in fact, the GCC FAQ entry makes reference to other implementations).

A number of development shops I've worked in have avoided templates precisely because of these problems, despite their benefits. Code reusability suffers as a result.

Presumably you didn't have this sorry state of affairs in mind when you were working on the specification. What did you imagine people would do? Abandon object files in favor of some other incremental-compilation scheme? (If so, what?) Are there any compilers that get this "right" in your estimation? In retrospect, would you have done anything differently to encourage compiler vendors to do the "right thing"?

Not everyone has to go opensource.

Quite right -- after all, there's already gcc, which has had its own sexy offshoots like pgcc.

I'm sure this is just another step amoung many that the corporations who are coming to run the world will take to ensure that they can squeeze every last cent out of their good little consumers. I'm a big fan of capitalism; I love the idea that a child who grew up in the worst of circumstances can beat the odds, become a millionaire and make a difference in this world, but the current state of affairs is ridiculous. Everyday we slide closer and closer to living in a plutocracy. I don't believe there is an ideal form of government, and I don't know what the optimal one is, but something has got to change here.

--

He throws a gnife.
It misses.
-> Throw axe
"Join me now and share the.... AAAACK!" [THUD]
You've killed a little GNOME.
The body disappears in a puff of greasy black smoke.

I seem to recall seeing something on the 'egcs' site which said -W and -Wall together enabled a few more warnings than -Wall alone.

In fact, on this page, about 2/3rds of the way down, it says:

• -Wall no longer implies -W. The new warning flag, -Wsign-compare, included in -Wall, warns about dangerous comparisons of signed and unsigned values. Only the flag is new; it was previously part of -W.

So there you have it. (Incidentally, these were the release notes from EGCS 1.1).

Udell's perspective seems rather limited. For example: "power tools like Perl's amazing map function, which applies a function to every element of a list." Simply amazing? This sort of thing is SOP in Lisp and other functional languages. And Scheme, for example, is available as a Unix scripting language in scsh and guile.

Also, you could check out the GNU Stow webpage at http://www.gnu.org/software/stow/stow.ht ml .

What needs done is much simpler. Currently popular packaging systems need dumped in favor of GNU Stow. Then we don't need to change automake and autoconf at all, because they work as-is.

Dependencies could be added to Stow by someone without a lot of trouble.

For those who don't want to download and install it to figure out what it does (althoug you should! It makes life very easy if you do any source installs), GNU Stow takes "packages" that have been installed in the standard manner (things placed properly in bin, lib, man, etc.) in their own directories (such as /usr/local/stow/) and makes links to the parent directory's bin, lib, etc. You can tell by a simple ls -l what a file belongs to. Since the links in the directories aren't the "real" files, you can delete and restore them with minimal trouble (I challenge someone with a conventional system to rm -rf /lib and restore it, without rebooting). You can even maintain multiple simultaneous versions of packages. Autoconf already makes this easy to use, simply supply the --prefix= parameter to your configure scripts.

No silly proprietary formats, nor waiting for someone to come out with the latest package in your favorite format, no trying to convert foreign packages to your system. Everything you can find in a tarball is now pre-packaged and waiting for you to install...

RMS believes people should be able to keep their code private. (And also other knowledge)

He, and the FSF, just believe that you shouldn't be able to prevent others from sharing the code that you give them, or to not provide someone with source code if you expect them to be able to run your binaries.

RMS must be the most misquoted hacker of all time. His, and the FSF's, position are made quite clear in about 3 pages of text here, yet people seem to continually misunderstand.

People do prefer to get paid for work

how much thought have you really put into that stament? or are you just repeating canned speechs? have you every thougth that just maybe we dont have to work, to live?

me thinks that you havent really thought or explored gnu.org's website...
ie under Philosophy of the GNU Project, there is this gem.

nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE

If you visit /. enough you'll also develop a herd mentality.

Are you sure that's not a HURD mentality?

Actually, it's kind of wierd. If you look at the GPL in section 3 it seems to give you the option of distributing the source with the binaries, or of offering the source to anyone who asks. I'm not sure that this allows them to refuse to give the source to someone. Anyone have clarification?

Here's the text in question:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, ...

Think about it. How much free software would be written if all free software authors were required to maintain multiple T1s to handle the load, if they happened to write something popular?

Now, if they try to say that students aren't allowed to redistribute CAEN Linux from a student, or whatever, they're violating the GPL. But they haven't done that. They've just put it on an on-campus-only download site. If you offered to mirror it off-campus, no doubt you could get a copy.

However - if it's anything like Eos Linux from NCSU, it'll be full of site-specific code that's meaningless outside the UMICH network. So why would you want it?

-Graham

Unsung
adj 1: not rendered in song; "their dirge was unsung" 2: not famous or acclaimed; "an obscure family"; "unsung heroes of the war" [syn: obscure, unknown] 3: having value that is not acknowledged [syn: unappreciated, unvalued]

So therefore the award was for heroes of the linux community that havent had songs written about them. I can only think of two poeple with songs. Linus and RMS. RMS has the Free Software Song and They both are in the the techno remix of the same song. If anyone knows of anyother songs please tell me.

And BTW, once IP goes away, the GPL will no longer be necessary, since all software will be freely redistributable and modifiable. Check out www.gnu.org sometime.

In 1999, Knuth was a nominee for the fsf award, but he lost it to Miguel de Icaza.

I can't be certain, but I think Knuth was also nominated for th 1998 fsf award, which Larry Wall won.

Now, he gets nominated for a Beanie Award, and loses to a Camel.

"Ha Ha Knuth! you will always be second place in the minds of the Open Source and Free Software communities!"

"The quality of our software depends on the algorithms which you so clearly explained in your books, our only defense against nasty patents is evidence of prior art, which you also provided much of, and you wrote TeX, the best open source typesetting tool, but you are still second place in our hearts."

"And by the way, nobody uses Web; 'literate programmer' is a contradiction in terms."

Don't laugh. It is only funny if your head is screwed on backwards.

Since the purpose of GNU is to be free, every single component in the GNU system has to be free software. They don't all have to be copylefted, however; any kind of free software is legally suitable to include if it helps meet technical goals. We can and do use non-copylefted free software such as the X Window System.

This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix license. It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the art.

Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes.

Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment by encouraging all students to study and improve the system code.

Maybe that's why people are whining. They want what they are using to be free. It is manifestly NOT, if the library is hidden, otherwise, as I pointed out in a previously down-moderated post, there is no difference between this program being GPL'ed and me modifiying it and me modifying a program written to the windows API.

This is a shallow attempt to get the kudos of being free. Actually, I should rephrase that to allow for another possibility: this is either cynical or else half-assed.

If you can't see that a program that depends on a hidden library is a problem then maybe you should check out this discussion of library licenses:

LGPL, but in case you don't feel like reading it here's a quote about libraries:

Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.

Don't you think that your line of argument will result in boosting the popularity of a non-free library?

(Thanks to record-industry lobbying, DAT machines for consumers can't make a second-generation copy of a prerecorded digital audio tape. And how many consumers these days buy DAT machines? Hmmm....)
--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."

This is pasted from the GNU Hurd FAQ

4.1 Can I run Linux binaries on GNU Hurd?

Currently, this is not possible. On the other hand, there are quite a few people who really want to make this work, so it is likely to happen in the near future.

I may add that it this FAQ has been saying this for quite a while now, and I haven't heard much about this on the hurd mailing lists. So don't expect running quake on hurd the next couple of months.

jarl

1. Lots of people know LISP. It's an easy language to learn, making it nicely suitable for the underlying language of a powerful text editor.
2. You claim Emacs is bloated, but then claim it's "just that, a text editor". Lots of people do lots more then edit from within Emacs.
3. It's unlikely that Cygnus would have taken gcc over unless it were advanced enough for them to continue its development without a lot of headaches.

Thank you for your participation in the discussion. For more information you should refer to http://www.emacs.org and http://www.gnu.org.

Why does the father of the "copyleft" decide to put "copyright 2000 Richard Stallman" on his written words, but not on his software?

Should we not be able to use his writing as we see fit?

As a general rule, I don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our views.

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

--

--

Check out this document.

I think that people don't give the FSF nearly enough credit. Long before Linus started hacking, the FSF was fostering the development of OSS, thereby providing fertile ground for the Linux kernel to germinate in. Without GNU, Linux would be a curiosity with little or no software to run on it.

Sir, I believe you are mistaken:

1. I'll give you 1 out of 3. Linux 0.01 is Copyright 1991 Linus Torvalds.

2. The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system.

3. From the History of the HURD page:

RMS explains the relationship between the Hurd and Linux in The Hurd and Linux, where he mentions that the FSF started developing the Hurd in 1990. As of [Gnusletter, Nov. 1991], the Hurd (running on Mach) is GNU's official kernel.

So HURD predates Linux, but Linux got usable much more quickly.

Sir, I believe you are mistaken:

1. I'll give you 1 out of 3. Linux 0.01 is Copyright 1991 Linus Torvalds.

2. The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system.

3. From the History of the HURD page:

RMS explains the relationship between the Hurd and Linux in The Hurd and Linux, where he mentions that the FSF started developing the Hurd in 1990. As of [Gnusletter, Nov. 1991], the Hurd (running on Mach) is GNU's official kernel.

So HURD predates Linux, but Linux got usable much more quickly.

History of the Hurd:
"RMS explains the relationship between the Hurd and Linux in The Hurd and Linux, where he mentions that the FSF started developing the Hurd in 1990. As of [Gnusletter, Nov. 1991], the Hurd (running on Mach) is GNU's official kernel. "

2000 - 1984 = 16, and 16 > 10 according to my calculations.

--

If someone wants an app, they should write it themselves. That's the point of the GosPeL surely!

If someone wants an app, they should write it themselves. That's the point of the GosPeL surely!

If someone wants an app, they should write it themselves. That's the point of the GosPeL surely!

Since you aren't 'with it', the egcs versions are still considered experimental

The current "egcs version", for what it's worth, is called GCC 2.95.2. Does it say in the 2.95.2 distribution that 2.95.2 is considered experimental? This announcement for GCC 2.95 says:

The whole suite has been extensively regression tested and package tested. It should be reliable and suitable for widespread use.

egcs won't release a stable compiler until gcc 3.0.

When will the GCC version 3 be released?

There is no firm release date for GCC 3 at this time (Jan 2000), nor has a decision been made whether the next major release of gcc will still be 2.x, or 3.0.

Since you aren't 'with it', the egcs versions are still considered experimental

The current "egcs version", for what it's worth, is called GCC 2.95.2. Does it say in the 2.95.2 distribution that 2.95.2 is considered experimental? This announcement for GCC 2.95 says:

The whole suite has been extensively regression tested and package tested. It should be reliable and suitable for widespread use.

egcs won't release a stable compiler until gcc 3.0.

When will the GCC version 3 be released?

There is no firm release date for GCC 3 at this time (Jan 2000), nor has a decision been made whether the next major release of gcc will still be 2.x, or 3.0.

Since you aren't 'with it', the egcs versions are still considered experimental

The current "egcs version", for what it's worth, is called GCC 2.95.2. Does it say in the 2.95.2 distribution that 2.95.2 is considered experimental? This announcement for GCC 2.95 says:

The whole suite has been extensively regression tested and package tested. It should be reliable and suitable for widespread use.

egcs won't release a stable compiler until gcc 3.0.

When will the GCC version 3 be released?

There is no firm release date for GCC 3 at this time (Jan 2000), nor has a decision been made whether the next major release of gcc will still be 2.x, or 3.0.

The idea is obvious, the implementation straightforward but time-consuming (Amazon will eagerly tell you that they have "thousands of hours" of work tied up in one-click, which is technically true - it takes thousands of hours of work to implement this obvious feature.)

Having obtained this rather dubious patent for such an obvious e-commerce service, they have turned around and sued Barnes and Noble, coincidentally their biggest competitor, for infringing upon it. If they succeed, they set a dangerously low standard for what is patentable in the world of e-commerce, and will permit the digital amalgams of basic physical customer service to be monopolized via the patent system. (When you think about it, this is electronically equivalent to your corner bookseller recognizing who you are and billing your charge account. It's a business practice that's been around for hundreds of years, but when you do it with a computer, you can get a patent.)

The FSF has a page on the boycott.

The idea is obvious, the implementation straightforward but time-consuming (Amazon will eagerly tell you that they have "thousands of hours" of work tied up in one-click, which is technically true - it takes thousands of hours of work to implement this obvious feature.)

Having obtained this rather dubious patent for such an obvious e-commerce service, they have turned around and sued Barnes and Noble, coincidentally their biggest competitor, for infringing upon it. If they succeed, they set a dangerously low standard for what is patentable in the world of e-commerce, and will permit the digital amalgams of basic physical customer service to be monopolized via the patent system. (When you think about it, this is electronically equivalent to your corner bookseller recognizing who you are and billing your charge account. It's a business practice that's been around for hundreds of years, but when you do it with a computer, you can get a patent.)

The FSF has a page on the boycott.

As for the price of distributions, they seem to want to make some money off it by selling free support and/or a book with the distro. There is nothing wrong with that, but I don't like the impression it gives to new users. (i.e. the impression that linux is expensive just like windoze. (it isn't because you can legally copy it, see below, and because you don't have to buy any more stuff to do useful work.))

Of course, the best way to get into linux is to find a local LUG, since you can ask questions, and get extremely useful info about how to set up linux to work with the local ISPs unfriendly setup. Even better, you can take your computer to a meeting and have some expert hackers work on getting your (random hardware X) supported, etc. Also, you can get someone with a fast 'net connection and a burner to make a CD of the distro of your choice for $2 a CD. (even ones like Stampede, which is available only by download. I don't know if Debian is being sold or not, I heard something about a retail Debian. (and I _don't_ mean Corel's linux.))
#define X(x,y) x##y

• Richard Stallman who brought us Emacs (among other things), and the GNU Public License
• Eric Raymond, author of Fetchmail and The Cathedral and the Bazaar
• Larry Wall, Tom Christiansen, and all of the big names of Perl who can write code, documentation, and insightful commentary.
• CmdrTaco, et al at Slashdot who have built both the code and much of the content required to make this one of the liveliest places on the net
• Linus himself. Although he doesn't write much prose, he summarizes things very well. The Linux motto, "Do it yourself."

Too many people confuse fascism, oligopoly, mercantilism and fraud with actual fair trade. (A truly free market requires informed consumers, not passive drones; but we cannot force everyone to be equally intelligent, nor expect everyone to be equally desirous to live freely.)

Groups can never have more rights than the individuals which comprise them -- the individual is the smallest minority. The privileges of a private guild conflict with the inalienable rights of individuals? Too bad; the latter trumps the former.

A lot of so-called "capitalists" have swallowed the CCA/MPAA lies hook, line and sinker. They think it's about piracy. It's not. What IS it about? A lot of things which can't be easily condensed, as the last few weeks of discussion here have shown. Meanwhile, lots of hackers see "capitalism" as the problem, when it's fascism, mercantilism, oligopoly and the like that they're really upset about -- they just don't realize it.

You already know the State claims you don't even own yourself? Now private guilds are ready to violate your rights just as thoroughly, and abuse the legal power of the State by using sovereign national's police forces as their enforcement arm. Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines "property" as

"the sole and despotic dominion which one man exercises over the external things of the world to the total exclusion of every other individual in the universe."

In the good old days, you were lucky: If you opened the case, all you did was void the warranty. Now, you can be declared a criminal. This harkens back to medieval days, when everyone had "special knowledge" and people were routinely exiled from the guild or killed by its members for revealing the secrets of smithing, healing, or even reading and writing.

But lawful behavior (fair use, reverse engineering and the like) can never be made unlawful, by any amount of legislation. It can only be declared illegal.

Of course it's easy to see how capitalism gets its bad name, given the retarded poster children that get all the press. Steve Gilliard once said, "The reason that some of us are more worried about government power than corporate power is that Coca Cola rarely strafes the villages of Pepsi drinkers." Unfortunately, a lot of groups out there seem to be eagerly competing with governments everywhere to see who can violate the rights of the individual more efficiently and thoroughly. Disney and other companies get together to extend copyrights, while every two-bit jackass who throws together a CGI script slaps a patent on it and sues anyone running a web-based store...

The future, where your only freedom is the freedom to make money (but not too much); where tools like compilers and debuggers are restricted to an elite, privileged and licensed class; where it doesn't matter whether it's government or a corporation giving you the shaft, because they're fascistically intertwined so thoroughly you can't tell one from the other.

"Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory."

Have a nice day, citizen-unit.

-dj

the problem with an information superhighway is that everyone wants to be a traffic cop