Re: Wanted: talented programmers
Dave Plowman (News)
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> Yup! That's correct. RISC OS is a lot less stressful. For the stuff it
> does, it just "works". No faffing about with drivers,
Eh? Never installed a new printer? Tried any USB thingies? Oh - not
'faffing about with drivers' is perhaps why I've never had a CD/DVD device
that has worked *properly* - ever.
--
*Rehab is for quitters
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
John M Ward
Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4fcb80b7b4inval...@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
> Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> > Yup! That's correct. RISC OS is a lot less stressful. For the stuff
> > it does, it just "works". No faffing about with drivers,
By and large, yes.
> Eh? Never installed a new printer?
Yup: several of 'em over the years. It has never been a problem,
including most recently an HP colour laser PostScript printer with only
a parallel connection. Therefore I connected it to my trusty
13-year-old RiscPC and shared it.
> Tried any USB thingies?
Yes, and again no problem, with the single exception of pen drives etc
over 2GB capacity. That is one issue that still needs to be addressed,
but that's all.
> Oh - not 'faffing about with drivers' is perhaps why I've never had a
> CD/DVD device that has worked *properly* - ever.
Mine have all worked perfectly, though I haven't written any DVDs to
date (I have no need to do so).
Overall: yes, we do sometimes need soft-loaded drivers, but most of them
things just work -- and it has been that way for as long as I can
remember. Elegant design, I call it.
--
John Ward in Medway, Kent - using RISC OS since 1987
Now using an Iyonix, an A9home, 2 RiscPCs and Virtual-RPC!
Acorn/RISC OS web page: www.john-ward.org.uk/personal/john/computers
Rob Kendrick
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In a dim and distant universe
> <20080808000...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> enlightened us thusly:
>
> > And this shows that you have no idea that most computer users don't
> > give a toss about computers; they just want to get stuff done.
>
> Well perhaps they /should/ give a toss before they use a computer.
> After all, PC users stupidity affects other people - just like drunk
> drivers do. If Windows software wasn't so insecure, bloated, virus
> prone and other stuff, the internet would be faster, there'd probably
> be less global warming and people would be less stressed by computer
> malfunction.
So on the one hand you say things must be easy to use and intuitive,
but on the other you say the user must understand everything? That
makes no sense.
> > Additionally, you praise RISC OS for it's "ease of use" and your
> > need to not have to understand the technicalities!
>
> Yup! That's correct. RISC OS is a lot less stressful.
I find it, both as a developer and user, deeply stressful. Its
performance, its stability, the lack of any OS development, the
inflexibility and expense of the software, etc etc etc. RISC OS won't
stand a chance of being popular until it's both as cheap as the
competition, anywhere near as good as the competition under the bonnet,
and provides an environment where developers don't hate it.
> For the stuff it does, it just "works".
The problem is the stuff it doesn't do.
> No faffing about with drivers,
You've never tried using older NIC with modern machines, then! The
hardware issue, in general though, does completely vanish when the
choice of hardware is so painfully narrow. And that's not a good thing.
> resetting things it's forgotten,
I don't get this on any OS I use.
> slowing down over time,
Or this.
> regular updating of anti-virus and security software (which in turn makes the
> machine less efficient - just look at Norton!!),
Well, to be fair, if RISC OS were even as popular as Linux, its virus
problems would return. Viruses were rife when schools used RISC OS -
they even got onto magazine cover discs and shareware compilations!
Its design makes it much more susceptible to viruses. Windows has had
15 years to make it more resistant, and RISC OS has done nothing. So
this problem only doesn't occur in RISC OS because it isn't popular,
meaning it's unfair to use it as an argument for why it should be more
popular.
(Also, I remember running !Killer at school/college [as it was
required] and it using a quarter of the machine's memory and slowing
the machine down to crawl even when it wasn't scanning!)
> and things which
> inexplicably change from day to day, such as turning the computer on
> and finding the network settings have been forgotten, or the printer
> driver has stopped working or some other such "Windows mystery"
What on earth do you do to your Windows machines? Given you say you
don't use them, I can only assume these faults haven't actually been
experienced by you :)
B.
David Pitt
> In a dim and distant universe <4fcb862...@davenoise.co.uk>,
> Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
[snip - stressing]
>
> > Tried any USB thingies?
>
> Again, never had a problem. Just plug into the Iyonix, and if it's a mass
> storage device it appears on the iconbar and away you go. I've tried all
> manner of things from external hard drives, printers (affore-mentioned HP
> AIO), memory sticks and mobile phones.
It would be lovely to inhabit a world where RISC OS did all the computing I
require. It works for Paul and he is entitled to say so. The notion that
RISC OS is less stressful than Windows is probably self evident to most of
us. What does not follow is that though RISC OS is fine for Paul is that it
is fine for everybody.
I think Paul does go too far with his propaganda to an extent that starts to
look like trolling, but he is not the only one that could be said of.
What ever is the point of a thread like this that descends into a "mine is
better than yours" beef fest.
What image of RISC OS would we want to show to any new talented programmers
that come across RISC OS, csa.* or a platform that might be stuck in a
cul-de-sac but still has on going large scale development as it has on
browsers.
--
David Pitt
Jess
John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> Yes, and again no problem, with the single exception of pen drives etc
> over 2GB capacity. That is one issue that still needs to be addressed,
> but that's all.
The 2GB file limit is the the thing that has caused me to use a Mac
for things that my Iyonix could otherwise do.
--
Jess Iyonix
Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
mailto:nos...@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net or
http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
Jess
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> So on the one hand you say things must be easy to use and intuitive,
> but on the other you say the user must understand everything? That
> makes no sense.
I would say that RISC OS has a slightly steeper learning curve for the
first few minutes (than windows or a mac), but once you have the basic
concepts, it then becomes very intuitive and promotes understanding of
the system. That would be why many long term RISC OS users move over
to windows and find it easy to use. (Far easier than many long term
windows user.)
[snip]
> Well, to be fair, if RISC OS were even as popular as Linux, its virus
> problems would return. Viruses were rife when schools used RISC OS -
> they even got onto magazine cover discs and shareware compilations!
> Its design makes it much more susceptible to viruses. Windows has had
> 15 years to make it more resistant, and RISC OS has done nothing. So
> this problem only doesn't occur in RISC OS because it isn't popular,
> meaning it's unfair to use it as an argument for why it should be more
> popular.
Where RISC OS wins is over the network in that it doesn't come up with
loads of services waiting to be hacked.
It also doesn't provide an email client with the functionality to
automatically run programs. (Thought I suspect the latest outlook
express is probably very hard to do that with, now).
Where it is hideously bad is with !boot files, these provide exactly
the same functionality that outlook provided to excute hostile code,
but from a filing system.
This could be improved by only filer_booting nominated folders (apps
utilities etc) and having an extra menu item to manually boot items.
it would also be nice if the lock facility was updated and used by
default. (The Mac seems to get the balance about right).
David Pitt
> In a dim and distant universe
> <gemini.k5bkt00...@pittdj.co.uk>,
> David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
> > I require. It works for Paul and he is entitled to say so. The notion
> > that RISC OS is less stressful than Windows is probably self evident to
> > most of us. What does not follow is that though RISC OS is fine for Paul
> > is that it is fine for everybody.
>
> Indeed. I've said many a time that RISC OS does everything that I require
> and, other than having a few other machines for support purposes, for
> personal use I would never require anything other than RISC OS. Other
> people's mileage may vary. However, I also disagree that just because some
> people around here complain that RISC OS doesn't do XYZ, it's useless for
> everyone - which is what a lot of people imply.
>
> Sure if someone comes along to me and say they want a computer
> specifically for video editing, then I'll recommend they get a Mac, but if
> they just want a computer for day-to-day stuff, I always recommend RISC
> OS. I then explain in a bit more detail some of the limitations of RISC OS
> but invariably a lot of people say, oh I don't want to watch YouTube or
> XYZ. I only want it for word processing etc., and if they're still
> interested, I often loan them a Risc PC for a week or so to see how they
> get on.
>
> > I think Paul does go too far with his propaganda to an extent that
> > starts to look like trolling, but he is not the only one that could be
> > said of.
>
> I guess it's sometimes a bit difficult to have sensible conversations via
> computer, especially Usenet and doubly-so these newsgroups, but a) I'm
> enthusiastic about RISC OS and don't like to see it unfairly (IMHO)
> dissed, b) these newsgroups are not exactly real-life scenarios because
> they're rather more polarised than talking to someone in person - people
> here probably already use RISC OS and either love it or (seem to) hate it
> so it's easier to get into a perceived argument, either as advocate or as
> devils advocate. :-)
It is difficult to have a sensible conversation on csa.*, it is too easily a
platform to voice one's own views on without taking any notice of the views
of others, that is just the psychology of indirect communication.
--
David Pitt
Rob Kendrick
Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Where RISC OS wins is over the network in that it doesn't come up
> with loads of services waiting to be hacked.
Nonsense. If you're running ShareFS, you're doomed. It essentially
lets you remotely call any SWI you like. Plus, people using RISC OS 5
or anything earlier than reasonably late ROL releases, they have no
firewalling at all.
Conversely, an installation of Ubuntu has zero listening services by
default. Windows Vista, should you tell it your networking device is
connected to a public network, also comes up with zero listening
services.
> It also doesn't provide an email client with the functionality to
> automatically run programs. (Thought I suspect the latest outlook
> express is probably very hard to do that with, now).
Further, I suspect it's easier to get Messenger Pro and Pluto to
automatically run a program. Outlook had been a security joke for many
years, but they've put a lot of work into it. I suspect Messenger and
Pluto between them have dozens upon dozens of undiscovered security
flaws.
> it would also be nice if the lock facility was updated and used by
> default. (The Mac seems to get the balance about right).
What would be nice is to go to a multi-user OS like both Mac OS and
Windows are now (and UNIX has always been) as it neatly solves this
issue: only the super user has permissions on certain parts of the file
system, and you are required to enter a password to become that
super user.
B.
druck
> Where it is hideously bad is with !boot files, these provide exactly
> the same functionality that outlook provided to excute hostile code,
> but from a filing system.
I've been saying for years that !Boot should be run by a restricted
ShellCLI which only allows a subset of operations such as IconSprites
and and system variables for nominated filetypes, but even there there
is scope for myschief. But as no one is bothered about exploiting the
existing vulnerabilities anymore, there hasn't been any need to fix
them.
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
John M Ward
Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In message <4fcb8ed...@acornusers.org>
> John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> > Yes, and again no problem, with the single exception of pen drives
> > etc over 2GB capacity. That is one issue that still needs to be
> > addressed, but that's all.
> The 2GB file limit is the the thing that has caused me to use a Mac
> for things that my Iyonix could otherwise do.
There is a way around it, which I use, stemming from my need for a
portable. Virtual Acorn, running on the portable, can access as a
HostFS Mount devices such as my 80 GB Freecom USB hard drives, a 4 GB
pen (flash) drive, and caddy-mounted old (spare) hard drives, also USB.
I bought the caddies from CJE and installed discarded drives ($0 and 80
GB) that had been replaced by 128 GB drives in the computers themselves
(Iyonix and RiscPC). Nothing goes to waste here!
Even so, sorting out the DosFS limit is something that does need to be
tackled. The excellent Dave Higton is partly there with his read-only
utility, which suggests that it could be solved -- it isn't technically
impossible.
Jess
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 08:22:00 +0100
> Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Where RISC OS wins is over the network in that it doesn't come up
>> with loads of services waiting to be hacked.
>
> Nonsense. If you're running ShareFS, you're doomed. It essentially
> lets you remotely call any SWI you like. Plus, people using RISC OS 5
And that's enabled by default is it? You can add insecurity to any
system.
> or anything earlier than reasonably late ROL releases, they have no
> firewalling at all.
So you can tell the machine is there and crash the internet stack.
> Conversely, an installation of Ubuntu has zero listening services by
> default. Windows Vista, should you tell it your networking device is
> connected to a public network, also comes up with zero listening
> services.
>> It also doesn't provide an email client with the functionality to
>> automatically run programs. (Thought I suspect the latest outlook
>> express is probably very hard to do that with, now).
>
> Further, I suspect it's easier to get Messenger Pro and Pluto to
> automatically run a program. Outlook had been a security joke for many
> years, but they've put a lot of work into it. I suspect Messenger and
> Pluto between them have dozens upon dozens of undiscovered security
> flaws.
Possibly, but I was under the impression (from posts by some
programmers) that things like buffer overflows were hard to do
anything with due to the separate data and instruction caches in
StrongArms.
>> it would also be nice if the lock facility was updated and used by
>> default. (The Mac seems to get the balance about right).
>
> What would be nice is to go to a multi-user OS like both Mac OS and
> Windows are now (and UNIX has always been) as it neatly solves this
> issue: only the super user has permissions on certain parts of the file
> system, and you are required to enter a password to become that
> super user.
Which isn't much different to the lock facility.
Jess
druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 9 Aug 2008 Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Where it is hideously bad is with !boot files, these provide exactly
>> the same functionality that outlook provided to excute hostile code,
>> but from a filing system.
>
> I've been saying for years that !Boot should be run by a restricted
> ShellCLI which only allows a subset of operations such as IconSprites
> and and system variables for nominated filetypes, but even there there
> is scope for myschief. But as no one is bothered about exploiting the
> existing vulnerabilities anymore, there hasn't been any need to fix
> them.
Limiting the booting to reserved (and explicitly chosen) folders would
stop most of the nasties (especially if those folders were locked by
default.) And hopefully not break too much.
In fact it would be nice to have both options available.
Jess
John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> In article <99af06c...@itworkshop.invalid>,
> Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In message <4fcb8ed...@acornusers.org>
>> John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
>
>> > Yes, and again no problem, with the single exception of pen drives
>> > etc over 2GB capacity. That is one issue that still needs to be
>> > addressed, but that's all.
>
>> The 2GB file limit is the the thing that has caused me to use a Mac
>> for things that my Iyonix could otherwise do.
>
> There is a way around it, which I use, stemming from my need for a
> portable. Virtual Acorn, running on the portable, can access as a
> HostFS Mount devices such as my 80 GB Freecom USB hard drives, a 4 GB
> pen (flash) drive, and caddy-mounted old (spare) hard drives, also USB.
> I bought the caddies from CJE and installed discarded drives ($0 and 80
> GB) that had been replaced by 128 GB drives in the computers themselves
> (Iyonix and RiscPC). Nothing goes to waste here!
>
> Even so, sorting out the DosFS limit is something that does need to be
> tackled. The excellent Dave Higton is partly there with his read-only
> utility, which suggests that it could be solved -- it isn't technically
> impossible.
That is a different aspect of the problem to the one that messes me
up.
That is caused by accessing dosdiscs as a file. Access them a
different way and you can get to the files. The problem is files
bigger than 2GB cannot be used.
So how do I download a 4.7 GB file and burn it to DVD? (Answer use my
Mac.)
This is made annoying by the fact that a bittorent client exists that
could otherwise get the file, and I could buy DVDBurn and then burn
it.
John M Ward
Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In message <20080809112...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 08:22:00 +0100
> > Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Where RISC OS wins is over the network in that it doesn't come up
> >> with loads of services waiting to be hacked.
> >
> > Nonsense. If you're running ShareFS, you're doomed. It
> > essentially lets you remotely call any SWI you like.
Funny: my whole house is networked via ShareFS (apart from the solitary
Wintel machine, which is Vista so doesn't even respond to LanMan98,
unlike its predecessor) but I don't seem to have had any problems over
the past eleven years since I had its cabling put in during the house
re-wiring...
> And that's enabled by default is it? You can add insecurity to any
> system.
I think our defaults are sensible, and the range of file/dir permissions
and ShareFS options are easy enough to understand and manage well and
safely. It's now a fairly old system, and no doubt would benefit from
some updating for server-plus-clients setups, but it still works well in
peer-to-peer network scenarios such as mine, which currently has
potentially seven RISC OS machines (if I were to have both portables in
use at once) on the network.
> > Plus, people using RISC OS 5 or anything earlier than reasonably
> > late ROL releases, they have no firewalling at all.
> So you can tell the machine is there and crash the internet stack.
I'm sure it could be done; though in practice the whole thing runs
smoothly and without hiccup, apart from an occasional error if a filer
action is accessing a machine that has gone single-tasking for more than
the 30-second timeout interval of ShareFS...
> > Conversely, an installation of Ubuntu has zero listening services
> > by default. Windows Vista, should you tell it your networking
> > device is connected to a public network, also comes up with zero
> > listening services.
> >> It also doesn't provide an email client with the functionality to
> >> automatically run programs. (Thought I suspect the latest outlook
> >> express is probably very hard to do that with, now).
> >
> > Further, I suspect it's easier to get Messenger Pro and Pluto to
> > automatically run a program.
I'd find that surprising, as there is no mechanism built in for
auto-running any kind of program from e.g. an attachment or embedded in
the body of an incoming message.
> > Outlook had been a security joke for many years, but they've put a
> > lot of work into it.
At long, long last! I am pleased to learn this.
> > I suspect Messenger and Pluto between them have dozens upon dozens
> > of undiscovered security flaws.
Quite possibly, though usually these are fixed within days (sometimes
hours) of being reported by even one user -- rather than years after the
pressure has become too great for Microsoft to continue to ignore.
Completely different philosophy...
> Possibly, but I was under the impression (from posts by some
> programmers) that things like buffer overflows were hard to do
> anything with due to the separate data and instruction caches in
> StrongArms.
The Harvard architecture CPUs are different from the other ARMs in
several respects, but both are still in use, including ARM9 in the
A9home, so one has to b a little careful here, I feel.
Even so, there aren't many issues that one tends to come across in
practice. Further development and other work to fix what remains (where
possible) would still be welcome, though.
> >> it would also be nice if the lock facility was updated and used by
> >> default. (The Mac seems to get the balance about right).
> >
> > What would be nice is to go to a multi-user OS like both Mac OS and
> > Windows are now (and UNIX has always been) as it neatly solves this
> > issue: only the super user has permissions on certain parts of the
> > file system, and you are required to enter a password to become
> > that super user.
> Which isn't much different to the lock facility.
Again, I am sure there is scope for updating some of this -- as indeed
RISCOS Ltd, Castle and (in part) ROOL are and have for some time been
doing. The latest RISC OS 6 release contains over 3,000 updates since
the last release of RO 6 (not 4/Select, note!) so one can hardly accuse
our people of standing still, as no doubt some here would try to do...
John M Ward
Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In message <8f6a1ecc...@druck.freeuk.net>
> druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> > On 9 Aug 2008 Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Where it is hideously bad is with !boot files, these provide
> >> exactly the same functionality that outlook provided to excute
> >> hostile code, but from a filing system.
In case of any corruption or accidental deletion of any part of !Boot, I
always keep a complete copy tucked away on the same drive, so that I can
always Shift-reboot, swap 'em over, and re-start as though nothing had
happened within just a few minutes.
Regardless of this, there are times when I wish that most of !Boot could
be stored within a read-only (but unlockable with a hardware key)
storage medium. I have become spoilt by having had the core OS in a
read-only form; but the add-ons (Resources, hooks) have grown so
extensive that there is nowadays more scope for things to go wrong.
> > I've been saying for years that !Boot should be run by a restricted
> > ShellCLI which only allows a subset of operations such as
> > IconSprites and and system variables for nominated filetypes, but
> > even there there is scope for myschief.
It sounds like a sensible idea, if (as you say) imperfect.
> > But as no one is bothered about exploiting the existing
> > vulnerabilities anymore, there hasn't been any need to fix them.
Perhaps when stuff is being done in the same general area, the
opportunity might be taken to do an essentially one-off exercise to deal
with those matters, if only to stop people grumbling :-)
> Limiting the booting to reserved (and explicitly chosen) folders
> would stop most of the nasties (especially if those folders were
> locked by default.) And hopefully not break too much.
Those folders would need to be unlockable only by means of a hardware
key, not by hostile code that either issued an unlock command or imposed
its own code via a "force" switch in the copy command.
> In fact it would be nice to have both options available.
Agreed!
Rob Kendrick
Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Possibly, but I was under the impression (from posts by some
> programmers) that things like buffer overflows were hard to do
> anything with due to the separate data and instruction caches in
> StrongArms.
Either the person who said this was confused, or you didn't understand
what they said. It's a complete non-sequitur, given that every type of
CPU that (modern) Windows runs on also has separate data and instruction
caches.
I think you need to go as far back as the 386 before you had combined
caches.
B.
Rob Kendrick
John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> > > Nonsense. If you're running ShareFS, you're doomed. It
> > > essentially lets you remotely call any SWI you like.
>
> Funny: my whole house is networked via ShareFS (apart from the
> solitary Wintel machine, which is Vista so doesn't even respond to
> LanMan98, unlike its predecessor) but I don't seem to have had any
> problems over the past eleven years since I had its cabling put in
> during the house re-wiring...
You're confused about the point I'm making; and that is that RISC OS
isn't secure at all - it's much less secure than Windows or OS X. It's
just that you don't notice because there are so few RISC OS users left,
it's not worth attacking any of them. Should RISC OS become popular,
which most of you seem to want, that single advantage would vanish.
> I think our defaults are sensible, and the range of file/dir
> permissions and ShareFS options are easy enough to understand and
> manage well and safely.
It's not about permissions: it's trivial to circumvent them, or just do
something evil like remotely ask a ShareFS machine to call OS_Reset.
> > > Further, I suspect it's easier to get Messenger Pro and Pluto to
> > > automatically run a program.
>
> I'd find that surprising, as there is no mechanism built in for
> auto-running any kind of program from e.g. an attachment or embedded
> in the body of an incoming message.
Much like Outlook, then.
> > > I suspect Messenger and Pluto between them have dozens upon dozens
> > > of undiscovered security flaws.
>
> Quite possibly, though usually these are fixed within days (sometimes
> hours) of being reported by even one user -- rather than years after
> the pressure has become too great for Microsoft to continue to ignore.
>
> Completely different philosophy...
You misunderstand security, and security engineering. It is foolish to
think that a "white hat" will responsibly report a flaw that they have
found before a "black hat" will take advantage of it secretly. Many of
the security flaws discovered in applications and OSes are discovered
through people actually using them to break into systems - the damage
is already done!
> > Possibly, but I was under the impression (from posts by some
> > programmers) that things like buffer overflows were hard to do
> > anything with due to the separate data and instruction caches in
> > StrongArms.
>
> The Harvard architecture CPUs are different from the other ARMs in
> several respects, but both are still in use, including ARM9 in the
> A9home, so one has to b a little careful here, I feel.
All ARM9s and later have split caches. And I don't think anybody is
planning on seriously using an ARM7 machine, are they? (Not that it
matters, the cache arrangement makes no difference to the difficulty or
plausibility.)
B.
Dave Higton
John M Ward <jo...@acornusers.org> wrote:
> Even so, sorting out the DosFS limit is something that does need to be
> tackled. The excellent Dave Higton is partly there with his read-only
> utility, which suggests that it could be solved -- it isn't technically
> impossible.
Thank you, John. You're too kind.
Dave