PKWARE, Inc. looking for UNIX Beta Testers

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Mark Gresbach

unread,
Feb 8, 1995, 5:40:47 PM2/8/95
to
PKWARE, Inc. is looking for Beta testers of the PKWARE Data
Compression Library (R) for UNIX.

Versions are currently in Beta Test for Novell, SCO, and SUN based
systems. Other platforms are under development.

If you are interested in Beta testing the PKWARE Data Compression
Library that allows you to incorporate data compression directly
into your sofware, log in to the PKWARE BBS. Use the following
account:

login: Beta Tester
password: quality

This will allow you to download the Beta Tester application form.
Follow the instructions in the form and return it to PKWARE for
evaluation. We will contact you if we approve your application.

The PKWARE Data Compression Library is a flexible utility that will
compress ASCII and Binary data by as much as 90%!!!

Mark Gresbach
PKWARE Inc.
9025 N Deerwood Drive
Brown Deer, WI 53223

TEL: (414) 354-8699
FAX: (414) 354-8559
BBS: (414) 354-8670


Paul Smith

unread,
Feb 14, 1995, 8:22:34 AM2/14/95
to
Chuck Bentley (chu...@hounix.org) wrote:
: In article <1995Feb8.2...@mixcom.com> Mark Gresbach <sup...@pkware.com> writes:
: >The PKWARE Data Compression Library is a flexible utility that will

: >compress ASCII and Binary data by as much as 90%!!!

: So will gzip!!!!

If you need pkunzip/pkzip DOS compatibility; unzip-5.12.tar.Z by S. Smith
unzip's on unix better then pkunzip, unzip works great.

...

Craig Dewick

unread,
Feb 18, 1995, 11:20:49 AM2/18/95
to
In <1995Feb14.0...@hounix.org> chu...@hounix.org (Chuck Bentley) writes:

>>The PKWARE Data Compression Library is a flexible utility that will
>>compress ASCII and Binary data by as much as 90%!!!

>So will gzip!!!!

And we all know the great advantage of gzip over anything else - it's
*FREE* !!!! So why would anyone bother with any other compression
utility, especially one that costs money.

Regards,

Craig.
--
Craig Dewick (cr...@orb.apana.org.au) - Passenger train driver, Sydney, Aust.
Support *independent* media <--> Support your local community radio station
Swimming in the MUSIQUARIUM of life <--> Monday 2 - 4pm, 2SER FM (107.3 MHz).
Always striving for a secure long-term future in an insecure short-term world

Willard F. Dawson

unread,
Feb 20, 1995, 12:21:37 AM2/20/95
to
mba...@teton.Mines.Colorado.EDU (Ade Barkah) writes:

>Riccardo Pizzi (pi...@nervous.com) wrote:


>: In article <3i56p1$9...@orb.apana.org.au> cr...@orb.apana.org.au (Craig Dewick) writes:

>: >>>The PKWARE Data Compression Library is a flexible utility that will
>: >>>compress ASCII and Binary data by as much as 90%!!!
>: >>So will gzip!!!!
>: >And we all know the great advantage of gzip over anything else - it's
>: >*FREE* !!!! So why would anyone bother with any other compression
>: >utility, especially one that costs money.

>: Not to mention that GNU zip has become the de-facto standard for UNIX
>: compression...

>Except that many many of us need to preserve datafile level
>compatibility with DOS/Windows... and thus the .zip world.

Sorry. Gzip is also available for DOS. So, why keep up this needless
argument?

Note followups, please...

Ade Barkah

unread,
Feb 19, 1995, 10:42:31 PM2/19/95
to
Riccardo Pizzi (pi...@nervous.com) wrote:

: In article <3i56p1$9...@orb.apana.org.au> cr...@orb.apana.org.au (Craig Dewick) writes:

: >>>The PKWARE Data Compression Library is a flexible utility that will
: >>>compress ASCII and Binary data by as much as 90%!!!
: >>So will gzip!!!!
: >And we all know the great advantage of gzip over anything else - it's
: >*FREE* !!!! So why would anyone bother with any other compression
: >utility, especially one that costs money.

: Not to mention that GNU zip has become the de-facto standard for UNIX
: compression...

Except that many many of us need to preserve datafile level
compatibility with DOS/Windows... and thus the .zip world.

-Ade Barkah
--
Head of Development
Renaissance Knowledge Systems
Englewood, Colorado

Vernon Schryver

unread,
Feb 20, 1995, 12:17:06 AM2/20/95
to
In article <D49xG...@nervous.com> pi...@nervous.com (Riccardo Pizzi) writes:

>In article <3i56p1$9...@orb.apana.org.au> cr...@orb.apana.org.au (Craig Dewick) writes:
>
>>>>The PKWARE Data Compression Library is a flexible utility that will
>>>>compress ASCII and Binary data by as much as 90%!!!
>>>So will gzip!!!!
>>And we all know the great advantage of gzip over anything else - it's
>>*FREE* !!!! So why would anyone bother with any other compression
>>utility, especially one that costs money.
>
>Not to mention that GNU zip has become the de-facto standard for UNIX
>compression...


That last sentence is not true. While the AT&T/USL/Novell `pack` is
clearly a distant third in the UNIX world, gzip is dominent only in some
spheres, notably the 80*86 universe, while `compress` still holds sway
elsewhere, including (as I recall) SVR4 as shipped by USL. For all I
know, the total number of 80*6 UNIX machines with NetBSD/FreeBSD/BSDI/Linux
is large enough to dominate, but the majority of the dollars is clearly
in the `compress` world, among the top 5 or 6 UNIX computer vendors.
In other words, if you measure the market by seats, that last sentence
above might or might not be true, but if you measure by dollars, it is
false.

The trouble with gzip is very much like the trouble with `compress`, a
license. Compress has the LZW patent, but gzip has the copyleft.
Depending on where you sit, one or the other is easier to deal with.
Yes, many amatuers and some others think the copyleft is no problem in
the commercial world. They are simply wrong and unaware of all of the
facts of other lives, but that old argument is not worth rehashing,
since it always beomes one of "I know the constraints you suffer; no
you don't until you've waked in my shoes; yes I do; no you don't"
ad naseum.

Please note again that Unisys recently explicitly claimed that LZW
decompression not just compression is covered by the Welch patent and
requires a license (after all, that's much of the GIF viewer hooha),
which makes the code in gzip that decompresses LZW a problem (contrary
to the Free Software Foundation's lawyers' claims), except that Unisys
explicitly said that LZW can be used freely and for free in freeware.

That last means that the only real advantage of gzip is that it generally
compresses more densely.


Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com

Message has been deleted

Neil Corlett

unread,
Feb 20, 1995, 12:33:47 PM2/20/95
to

There is a PKWARE v2 compatible ZIP package for unix. Try ftp://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/packages/zip.
The zip and unzip are separate. It also ships with slackware linux. It has un(pk)zipped everything
I have thrown at it so far.

Who needs DOS? :-)

Neil

Mike Batchelor

unread,
Feb 21, 1995, 9:12:21 AM2/21/95
to
In <D49xG...@nervous.com> pi...@nervous.com (Riccardo Pizzi) writes:

>In article <3i56p1$9...@orb.apana.org.au> cr...@orb.apana.org.au (Craig Dewick) writes:

>>>>The PKWARE Data Compression Library is a flexible utility that will
>>>>compress ASCII and Binary data by as much as 90%!!!
>>>So will gzip!!!!
>>And we all know the great advantage of gzip over anything else - it's
>>*FREE* !!!! So why would anyone bother with any other compression
>>utility, especially one that costs money.

>Not to mention that GNU zip has become the de-facto standard for UNIX
>compression...

How much is the royalty one pays to the FSF for using GPL'ed code in a
commercial product, compared to what PKWare wants for their stuff?
--
\\\ Mike Batchelor /// mik...@clark.net \\\ M.Bat...@babylon4.clark.net ///
"Supporting Windows is like buying a puppy. The dog only cost $100, but
we spent another $500 cleaning the carpet."
- Marc Dodge, "Reality Check", _Open Computing_, December 1994

Mike Batchelor

unread,
Feb 21, 1995, 9:16:39 AM2/21/95
to
In <1995Feb21....@kf8nh.wariat.org> b...@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:

>Also sprach pi...@nervous.com (Riccardo Pizzi) (<D4Bqo...@nervous.com>):
>+---------------
>| Any serious sysadmin will compile gzip on its UNIX platform...
>+------------->8

>...assuming that the preferred trade-off is time for space. I use compress
>still for the 100MB+ data files we have to work with, because gzip just plain
>takes too long. (I once left it running overnight and it was still chewing
>the next morning. compress took 2 1/2 hours for the same file.)

>compress is not yet obsolete. If there is a faster package than gzip which
>avoids that d*mned patent, though, I'm all ears.

Try gzip -1. It seems to be to be about as fast as compress, and slightly
better compression. Depends on the data, of course.

Vernon Schryver

unread,
Feb 21, 1995, 1:15:48 PM2/21/95
to
In article <3icsc5$2...@explorer.clark.net> mik...@clark.net (Mike Batchelor) writes:

> ...
>How much is the royalty one pays to the FSF for using GPL'ed code in a
>commercial product, compared to what PKWare wants for their stuff?


The Free Software Foundation does not require that you pay them money.
They do require that you jump through some hoops, namely shipping source,
including source to all of your enhancements to the original. Those
hoops have substantial cost, even if you disavow any possible reduction
in your profits by giving away your 'value added.' In real life, your
modifications of someone's free code have insignificant monetary value,
so being unable to license or keep your competators from copying your
tweaks to GNU source matters only to wannabe rich software tycoons and
clue-challenged commercial software managers and salescritters. On the
other hand, distributing another file***, particularly a file that an
infinitesimally tiny minority of your customers want**, on distribution
media that is always overflowing, to be installed on disks that are
always too full, and ensuring that you distribute the right unnecessary
bits is expensive in labor and other indirect costs.

That is why it is practically always only hobbiests, or at least people
do not toil in the commerical software trenches, who sing the praises
of the copyleft. The rest of us already have plenty to do without
making our release cycles worse.


Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com

**yes, of course there are many people who always want source.
I'm one of them. However, people like me are an infinitesimally
tiny fraction of the commercial software markets.

***yes, of course, you can distribute the source in many ways, including
by BBS and anonymous FTP. Only people who have not run anonymous FTP
servers, including distributing such source, might think that is free,
easy, and/or interesting.

Riccardo Pizzi

unread,
Feb 20, 1995, 11:11:10 PM2/20/95
to
In article <1995Feb21....@kf8nh.wariat.org> b...@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:

>...assuming that the preferred trade-off is time for space. I use compress
>still for the 100MB+ data files we have to work with, because gzip just plain
>takes too long. (I once left it running overnight and it was still chewing
>the next morning. compress took 2 1/2 hours for the same file.)
>compress is not yet obsolete. If there is a faster package than gzip which
>avoids that d*mned patent, though, I'm all ears.

I didn't find it particularly slow. If I am in a hurry, I use the default
compression (gzip -5), but usually I enjoy the increased compression obtained
by gzip -9.... and then there's gzip -1 :-) bu I never tried it...

Rick
--
Riccardo Pizzi @ the Nervous Consulting Headquarters, Rimini, ITALY
E-Mail: pi...@nervous.com ZyX/FAX: +39-541-23111 V.FC: +39-541-27135
Nervous Consulting brought you UniBoard, the great UNIX BBS package
INFO: unib...@nervous.com or gopher://gopher.apk.net:70/00/uniboard/uniboard

Message has been deleted

Mark S. Winsor

unread,
Feb 21, 1995, 6:56:23 PM2/21/95
to
> Please note again that Unisys recently explicitly claimed that LZW
> decompression not just compression is covered by the Welch patent and
> requires a license (after all, that's much of the GIF viewer hooha),
> which makes the code in gzip that decompresses LZW a problem (contrary
> to the Free Software Foundation's lawyers' claims), except that Unisys
> explicitly said that LZW can be used freely and for free in freeware.
>
> That last means that the only real advantage of gzip is that it generally
> compresses more densely.
>

Which, since that is its only function, is a significant advantage!

Frank J. Edwards

unread,
Feb 23, 1995, 7:36:51 PM2/23/95
to
v...@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) sayeth:

>In article <3icsc5$2...@explorer.clark.net> mik...@clark.net (Mike Batchelor) writes:
>The Free Software Foundation does not require that you pay them money.
>They do require that you jump through some hoops, namely shipping source,
>including source to all of your enhancements to the original. Those
>hoops have substantial cost, even if you disavow any possible reduction
>in your profits by giving away your 'value added.' [...]
>
>[...] On the

>other hand, distributing another file***, particularly a file that an
>infinitesimally tiny minority of your customers want**, on distribution
>media that is always overflowing, to be installed on disks that are
>always too full, and ensuring that you distribute the right unnecessary
>bits is expensive in labor and other indirect costs.

Hmmm, yeah, maybe. I mean, what are 3 files to add to the distribution
vs. 1 file? (Assuming that you need a "compress" program, that's the 1
file. The GNU copyleft requires the COPYRIGHT statement and the source
code. That's a total of 3 files.)

If you're release system is going to be overwrought by adding 2 files,
you need a new release system. And using symbolic links allows you to
include a tar of the source called "compress.tar.x" that always points to
the right source file, or even to a named piped that generates the right
source file!

And lastly, don't install it on "disks that are always too full". There's
no reason to install the source code. Simply make it available by putting
on the media. And if another floppy is going to break your back, use a
CDROM instead. Or tape.

>Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com
>
>**yes, of course there are many people who always want source.
> I'm one of them. However, people like me are an infinitesimally
> tiny fraction of the commercial software markets.

Me too!
--
Frank "Crash" Edwards Edwards & Edwards Consulting
Voice: 813/786-3675 Unix/AIX & OS/2: Training, Programming, and SysAdmin
Data/Fax: 813/787-3675 cr...@EEC.COM; inquiries to in...@EEC.COM

Arnt Gulbrandsen

unread,
Feb 24, 1995, 3:41:01 PM2/24/95
to
In article <3icsc5$2...@explorer.clark.net>,

Mike Batchelor <mik...@clark.net> wrote:
>How much is the royalty one pays to the FSF for using GPL'ed code in a
>commercial product, compared to what PKWare wants for their stuff?

Before posting this question, I think you should have read the
licence for the compression and decompression code in gzip, gunzip
and the info-zip programs. For your convenience, they are appended.

--Arnt
inflate.c licence statement:
/* inflate.c -- Not copyrighted 1992 by Mark Adler
version c10p1, 10 January 1993 */

/* You can do whatever you like with this source file, though I would
prefer that if you modify it and redistribute it that you include
comments to that effect with your name and the date. Thank you.
[irrelevant stuff deleted - arnt]

deflate.c licence statement, gzip-1.2.4:
/* deflate.c -- compress data using the deflation algorithm
* Copyright (C) 1992-1993 Jean-loup Gailly
* This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
* terms of the GNU General Public License, see the file COPYING.
*/

deflate.c licence statement, zip version 2.01:
/*

Copyright (C) 1990-1993 Mark Adler, Richard B. Wales, Jean-loup Gailly,
Kai Uwe Rommel and Igor Mandrichenko.
Permission is granted to any individual or institution to use, copy, or
redistribute this software so long as all of the original files are included,
that it is not sold for profit, and that this copyright notice is retained.

*/

Lawrence Kirby

unread,
Feb 24, 1995, 3:58:31 PM2/24/95
to
In article <1995Feb21.2...@kf8nh.wariat.org>
b...@kf8nh.wariat.org "Brandon S. Allbery" writes:

>I grant that the data files are not the most compressible; they're from an IBM
>mainframe and contain binary, packed (BCD) and character (EBCDIC) data.
>However, gzip's time compared to compress on them isn't acceptable.
>
>(Yes, I did try gzip -1; I gave up after 4 hours.)

Strange - I've found gzip -1 to always be faster than compress on a whole
range of different files. There again it is possible my version was compiled
at a higher level of optimisation than yours.

--
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fr...@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 7073...@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Jeffrey W. Parker

unread,
Feb 24, 1995, 2:11:50 PM2/24/95
to
Hello out there,
I tried to follow this thread, and personally, I'm in the gzip camp.
If you MUST use ZIP, there are zip and unzip for UNIX (almost ALL platforms,
actually) and are pkzip compatible, and the sources are compiled binaries for
most platforms are available. I don't anyone else brought this up. I'm not
sure we even NEED pkzip for UNIX.

Just my $.02


Jeff


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey W. Parker +1 708 960-0133 x34 LIDP Consulting Inc.
jw...@mcs.com +1 708 960-0717 fax 3590 Hobson Road
Woodridge, IL 60517

Mathias Koerber

unread,
Feb 26, 1995, 5:23:10 AM2/26/95
to
In (<D4C6I...@nervous.com>) Riccardo Pizzi (pi...@nervous.com) wrote:
| In article <1995Feb21....@kf8nh.wariat.org> b...@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:

| >...assuming that the preferred trade-off is time for space. I use compress
| >still for the 100MB+ data files we have to work with, because gzip just plain
| >takes too long. (I once left it running overnight and it was still chewing
| >the next morning. compress took 2 1/2 hours for the same file.)
| >compress is not yet obsolete. If there is a faster package than gzip which
| >avoids that d*mned patent, though, I'm all ears.

| I didn't find it particularly slow. If I am in a hurry, I use the default
| compression (gzip -5), but usually I enjoy the increased compression obtained
| by gzip -9.... and then there's gzip -1 :-) bu I never tried it...

gzip -1 is still faster AND better compression than compress(1), which makes it
ideal for inline compression in pipes etc. I *never* bother with gzip -9
because the extra time taken is not worth the space gained.

mathias


| Rick
| --
| Riccardo Pizzi @ the Nervous Consulting Headquarters, Rimini, ITALY
| E-Mail: pi...@nervous.com ZyX/FAX: +39-541-23111 V.FC: +39-541-27135
| Nervous Consulting brought you UniBoard, the great UNIX BBS package
| INFO: unib...@nervous.com or gopher://gopher.apk.net:70/00/uniboard/uniboard

--
Mathias Koerber Tel: +65 / 778 00 66 x 29
SW International Systems Pte Ltd Fax: +65 / 777 94 01
14 Science Park Drive #04-01 The Maxwell e-mail: Mathias...@swi.com.sg
S'pore 0511 <A HREF=http://www.swi.com.sg/~mathias/mathias.html>MK</A>
"Don't pay any attention to the critics. Don't even ignore them.''
-- Sam Goldwyn

Martin Sohnius

unread,
Feb 27, 1995, 7:56:45 AM2/27/95
to
Arnt Gulbrandsen (agu...@nvg.unit.no) wrote:

[ quoting this: ]

: deflate.c licence statement, zip version 2.01:
: /*

: Copyright (C) 1990-1993 Mark Adler, Richard B. Wales, Jean-loup Gailly,
: Kai Uwe Rommel and Igor Mandrichenko.
: Permission is granted to any individual or institution to use, copy, or
: redistribute this software so long as all of the original files are included,
: that it is not sold for profit, and that this copyright notice is retained.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: */

This innocuous "not sold for profit" is what actually prevents a lot of
very good GNU products from being incorporated into commercial UNIXes, or
even replacing often quite inferior commercial versions of the same
utility. The effect of this rule is that a commercial vendor cannot
provide this code on the actual release media, since in the case of an OS
it is intrisically impossible to separate what is "sold for profit" and
what is a free add-on.

This can, and does, create the silly situtation that vendors, such as
Novell, cannot distribute "free" software on the actual distribution
media with the OS (unless by special agreement with the copright holder),
but they can freely and perfectly legally set up an ftp or WWW server from
which to download that very same software. In the latter case, the user
is the one who does the downloading, and the whole thing is clearly a free
add-on... Silly, really.

--
+----------------------------------+
Martin Sohnius | The first rule in politics: |
Novell Labs Europe | "When in a hole, stop digging." |
Bracknell, England | - Denis Lord Healey |
+44-1344-724031 +----------------------------------+
(I speak for myself, not for Novell or anyone else.)

Leslie Mikesell

unread,
Feb 27, 1995, 3:53:53 PM2/27/95
to
In article <D4ntA...@novell.co.uk>,

Martin Sohnius <msoh...@novell.co.uk> wrote:
>: deflate.c licence statement, zip version 2.01:
>: /*
[...]>

>: Permission is granted to any individual or institution to use, copy, or
>: redistribute this software so long as all of the original files are included,
>: that it is not sold for profit, and that this copyright notice is retained.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: */
>
>This innocuous "not sold for profit" is what actually prevents a lot of
>very good GNU products from being incorporated into commercial UNIXes, or
>even replacing often quite inferior commercial versions of the same
>utility.

Actual GNU products never say that. Their restriction is simply that
you must distribute the source code along with the binaries or offer
to supply them at cost on demand, and you can't keep a recipient from
further distributing his copy.

>The effect of this rule is that a commercial vendor cannot
>provide this code on the actual release media, since in the case of an OS
>it is intrisically impossible to separate what is "sold for profit" and
>what is a free add-on.

That doesn't make much sense. Why is it any harder to keep track of
free vs. non-free components than it would be to mix products from
two different vendors? Do you see vertical marketers saying that
it is impossible to sell a product containing Novell components because
they can't keep track of who owns what?

Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com

Peter da Silva

unread,
Feb 27, 1995, 5:02:20 PM2/27/95
to
In article <D4ntA...@novell.co.uk>,
Martin Sohnius <msoh...@novell.co.uk> wrote:
> This innocuous "not sold for profit" is what actually prevents a lot of
> very good GNU products from being incorporated into commercial UNIXes,

Look again. That wasn't a GNU license. The GNU license has even more of
an impact on commercial use.
--
Peter da Silva `-_-'
Network Management Technology Incorporated 'U`
1601 Industrial Blvd. Sugar Land, TX 77478 USA
+1 713 274 5180 "Hast du Heute schon deinen Wolf umarmt?"

Cave Newt

unread,
Feb 27, 1995, 5:57:36 PM2/27/95
to
Martin Sohnius <msoh...@novell.co.uk> wrote:

>: deflate.c licence statement, zip version 2.01:

>: Copyright (C) 1990-1993 Mark Adler, Richard B. Wales, Jean-loup Gailly,
>: Kai Uwe Rommel and Igor Mandrichenko.
>: Permission is granted to any individual or institution to use, copy, or
>: redistribute this software so long as all of the original files are included,
>: that it is not sold for profit, and that this copyright notice is retained.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

>This innocuous "not sold for profit" is what actually prevents a lot of
>very good GNU products from being incorporated into commercial UNIXes, or
>even replacing often quite inferior commercial versions of the same
>utility.

Others have noted that Zip is not covered by GNU-anything (although strictly
speaking, you didn't quite say that, either).

More to the point, you have been completely misled by the out-of-context
quote. If you read carefully and/or check Zip's README file, you'll find
that only the Info-ZIP code *itself* is prohibited from sale. You can
always use it in a commercial app as long as you make it clear that the
Zip-originated code is not being sold, and you must offer to make the orig-
inal (Info-ZIP) sources available for free or for a small copying cost if
a customer requests them. (To my knowledge, no one ever has...)

Note that certain large computer companies have already taken advantage of
this, as have numerous small ones. Those who simply wish to include our
stock Zip and UnZip programs may do so without the source code offer, btw.
The only requirement in that case has to do with the inclusion of certain
documentation. Yes, there are strings attached either way, but they're
fairly wispy strings... :-)

One last thing: you might wish to contact John Calcote in your US offices.

Greg Roelofs
Info-ZIP
...attempting to find a "kindler, gentler" path...

Mike Setzer

unread,
Feb 28, 1995, 1:16:03 AM2/28/95
to
Doesn't Novell sale the right to use the software. The software and the
the disks or CD's are just the media for being able. This may be playing
with words, but that might be what the law is all about. If they stated
that the $$$ paid are for the license, and the books and CD's are either
free or at no additional cost. Whatever the legal Eagles say works.

Martin Sohnius (msoh...@novell.co.uk) wrote:
: Arnt Gulbrandsen (agu...@nvg.unit.no) wrote:

: [ quoting this: ]

--
============================================================
* Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor *
* mi...@Kuentos.Guam.Net *
* Best Address: MIC...@GCCcc.Guam.Net *

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages