FidoNews · Vol 2, No 34 · 7 October 1985
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:02:43 Page 1
Volume 2, Number 34 7 October 1985
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| _ |
| / \ |
| - Fidonews - /|oo \ |
| (_| /_) |
| Fido and Fidonet _`@/_ \ _ |
| Users Group | | \ \\ |
| Newsletter | (*) | \ )) |
| ______ |__U__| / \// |
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
| (jm) |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Publisher: Fido 107/7
Chief Procrastinator: Thom Henderson
Review Editor: Andy Foray
Fido Utility Review Editor: Ben Baker
Regional Bureau Chiefs: Network hosts everywhere
Fidonews is published weekly by SEAboard, Fido 107/7. You
are encouraged to submit articles for publication in
Fidonews. Article submission standards are contained in the
file FIDONEWS.DOC, available from Fido 107/7.
Disclaimer or don't-blame-us:
The contents of the articles contained here are not our
responsibility, nor do we necessarily agree with them;
everything here is subject to debate. We publish EVERYTHING
received.
NEC SCHMEC
The NEC v20 and v30 chips certainly seem to have hit a
responsive cord. I guess there's a lot of appeal to the
idea of boosting the speed of your computer for only a few
dollars.
I can well understand it. When I first started working on
the PC I found it annoying that system response time didn't
get any better after five o'clock. A salesman for one of
our clients would claim that a major advantage of using a PC
was "consistent performance". Our usual response was,
"Yeah, consistently bad."
These days I just suffer along, and keep a book handy for
those long compiles. It's still nothing like having a
Honeywell 6640 at your beck and call, but I've gotten used
to it.
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:02:46 Page 2
Oh, it's not all bad, by any means. At least I own my own
hardware now. I no longer have to worry about moving all my
stuff every time I change clients. Still, it could be
faster.
By all appearances I'm not the only one who feels that way.
There certainly seems to be quite a market for "accelerator
boards". Greater speed also seems to be the main reason
people want AT's. And now all this fuss over the NEC chip.
It's understandable. An old maxim among programmers states
that "there's no such thing as enough." Everybody will
always want more speed, more memory, more disk space. Any
time you put a limit on anything, someone will hit that
limit and complain about it.
A side note and example: We once worked on a project where
there was supposed to be an exceptions table. The client
said to allow room for ten exceptions, since he'd never
really need more than three or four, but wanted to play it
safe. We nodded our heads, and made room for a hundred. A
year later we were called back to expand the size of the
table.
As for the NEC chip, there seems to be some disagreement on
how well it really works. I'll let you read the reports and
decide for yourself. I also hear that Intel is suing NEC,
claiming that it's a straight copy of the 8088. If this is
true, then how could it be faster? Not being a lawyer, I
don't know. I find it amusing, though. You see, a few
years back Datapoint was suing Intel, claiming that the 8008
was a straight copy of a Datapoint machine -- the exact same
logic circuitry, just etched on a single chip. (I've since
heard it rumoured that they settled out of court.)
People will always want more, and vendors will always claim
to give it. There will always be a faster machine, a bigger
disk, and so forth. As my partner keeps reminding me, if
you don't want your equipment to become obsolete in a month,
you're in the wrong business.
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:02:47 Page 3
============================================================
NEWS
============================================================
THE COMPUTER UNDERGROUND
pre-publication preview
This is a pre-publication, and off-the-wall review of the
the hottest and most realistic treatment of computer crime
(mainly getting unauthorized mainframe access) I've seen.
Not only do they have the logic of how to do it, they have
sample program listings!!!. Most stuff came from pirate BBS
systems.
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND has stuff on ARPANET, MILNET, VAXs,
IBMs, Telenet, Tymnet and even a program listing for how to
crack Dialog passwords!
Most folks running mainframes say it can't happen to them.
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND shows it can not only happen to them,
as portrayed on TV, but shows how incredibly simple it is
because of sysop stupidity/laziness.
Even the government should read this book and give it to the
FBI as part of its training on busting crashers and data
pirates. The book exposes some of the weakest links in
datacom security at major corporations.
This book is from the same publisher who brought you how to
get a new identity, how to make bombs in your kitchen, etc.
Send for information to the publisher:
Loompanics Unlmited
P.O. Box 1197
Port Townsend, WA 98368
If you think this book is as dangerous and revealing as I
think it is, you'll get your friends to read it and upgrade
their mainframe systems.
Get ahold of Computer Underground and show folks what is
really going on.
Please pass on this notice.
We are talking really big databases here!!!
Best, Sophie Tucker from Spiv's FidoNet in San Jose.
------------------------------------------------------------
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:02:49 Page 4
A Modest Proposal
Kurt Reisler
SYSOP FIDO 109/74 & 109/483
Recently I have been receiving a lot of inqueries
about where to obtain copies of the latest version of FIDO.
Although I maintain both the DEC Rainbow and the IBM PC
versions for downloading on FIDO 109/483 (Wash-A-RUG), and I
know that they are also available on FIDO 100/22, 101/27 and
125/1 (of course), I would like to be able to direct these
individuals to the nearest "distribution" nodes.
So, I would like to propose the following. I would
like to build a list of "distribution" nodes, their
locations, phone numbers, and versions of FIDO that the
maintain (ie DEC, IBM, SANYO, etc.). Those of you who are
maintaining FIDO distributions on line, please let me know
via FIDOMAIL, and I will compile all of this information
into a list which can be published in the FIDONEWS, as well
as distributed via UUCP/USENET to the rest of the world.
So, please send the requested information to me
(SYSOP) at FIDO 109/74 (The Bear's Den), and I will get
started compiling this FIDO distribution list.
Thanks - Kurt
------------------------------------------------------------
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:02:50 Page 5
Submitted by Donald Larson, Node 115/333
*** MORE REGARDING THE NEC V20 MICROPROCESSOR CHIP ***
Downloaded from another Chicago BBS system
The following note appeared recently on USENet (net.micro).
It seems to be the best summary so far of the NEC V20/30 -
iAPX86/88 controversy. I'm posting it in it's entirety:
From: tweten@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Dave Tweten)
Subject: Re: NEC V20 ---> 8088
Date-Received: 16 Sep 85 08:45:42 GMT
I recently bought an NEC V20 and installed it in my Z-151,
which I am using to write this message. When I pried the
8088 out from next to my 8087, I noticed that it too had
been a NEC part. Contrary to earlier comments in this forum
about NEC 8088s not working with 8087s, it had worked
flawlessly with my 8087 for the previous year.
Preliminary experience is that the V20 speeds up some
programs noticably, and has no effect on others. That is to
be expected. If a program is 8087 limited or I/O limited,
speeding up the 8088 will do no good. It has worked at
least as well as the 8088 for any program I have tried.
The only "negative" effect of the V20 is it causes Zenith's
disk-based diagnostics for CPU-board crystal frequency, and
for floppy-disk driver crystal frequency to fail. I presume
the tests compare crystal cycles against a wait-loop
counter. Since the NEC V20 "waits faster" the tests fail.
Sorry, no time yet to do benchmarks.
From: Charles R. LaBrec <crl@Newton.Purdue.EDU>
I haven't really heard many specifics of the NEC V20. Is it
really a case of design stealing or just a case of
duplicating the 8088 instruction set? Would someone care to
enlighten me?
I don't presume to be an engineering law expert, but by no
strech of my imagination can I conceive to the V20 being an
8088 carbon copy, either legal or illegal. The following
information was gleened from Intel's "iAPX 88 BOOK" and from
the NEC document titled "V20, uPD70108, HIGH-PERFORMANCE 16-
BIT MICROPROCESSOR, PRELIMINARY INFORMATION", dated May
1985.
The time for a register-to-register ADD is quoted as
three clocks for the 8088, two clocks for the V20. NEC's
literature claims that is due to dual 16-bit on-chip busses
for the V20, as opposed to a single bus in the 8088. That
supposedly permits two-cycle register-register instructions
(get both operands, return result), where the 8088 uses
three (get one operand, get the other, return the result).
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:02:52 Page 6
A quick scan through the respective instruction timing
charts indicates that the relationship holds for all trivial
two-register instructions (this obviously doesn't apply to
multiply and divide).
Intel's register-register 16-bit operand, 32-bit result
multiply is quoted at 118-113 clocks. NEC's is quoted as
41-47. The equivalent divide times are 165-184 cycles for
Intel and 38-43 for NEC. Yes, I too noticed that NEC claims
to divide faster than they multiply, and I can't explain it
either.
NEC claims to use a separate address resolution unit on
the chip, instead of using the arithmetic unit. Their
effective address calculation time is two cycles for any
mode. Intel's ranges from 5 to 12, depending on mode.
The NEC chip has an expanded instruction set. By my
estimation, it includes all the 80186 set plus several more.
It has bit-field insert and extract (perhaps useful in low
level graphics?). It can test and manipulate individual
bits in memory. It has packed decimal string add, subtract
and compare. It has a BCD digit rotate instruction. Those
are the highlights (as I see them); there are several more
instructions I haven't mentioned. There is also a complete
8080 emulation mode which interests me not at all.
In summary, it appears to me that if the V20 is a "pirate"
8088, then the Z-80 was a "pirate" 8080. Is our chauvinism
showing?
------------------------------------------------------------
<Additional comments, notations from another board>
------------------------------------------------------------
18:33:11 9/17/1985
NEC V20 CPU chip
Triple 8088 speed.
The NEC V20 CPU chip is an 8088 CPU chip replacement. Speed
improvements of 10-40% have been claimed for the chip.
It may be that these percentage increases in speed
understate the actual improvement attributable to the chip
alone, since they may include disk operations or other
operations that are not CPU-intensive.
The program CPU.COM tests the speed of a CPU with minimal
RAM access and no disk I/O. The speed of the CPU is almost
TRIPLE the speed of the native Intel 8088:
-------------------
C>cpu
CLOCK SPEED CHECKER (minimal RAM access), please wait...
Execution time should be 10.00 secs if 4.77 Mhz clock & no
WAITs on RAM access
Actual execution time here was 03.35 seconds
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:02:54 Page 7
Effective clock speed = >.23 Mhz
C>
-------------------
The above effective clock speed of ">.23 Mhz" is 14.23 Mhz.
Evidentally the program CPU.COM did not anticipate double-
digit clock rates.
The above test was performed on an IBM Portable PC.
This chip can be purchased from JDR Microdevices for about
$20. See a recent issue of Byte for their ad.
Zider Brothers, San Francisco.
17:17:40 9/23/1985
NEC V20 CPU chip
PPC 70% speed improvement.
Further to the earlier note on the NEC V20 chip. Tested
with the system speed test SI in the Norton Utilities
Version 3.0 on an IBM Portable PC. Factor of 1.7 times the
PC:
------------------------
C>si
SI-System Information, Version 3.00, (C) Copyright 1984,
Peter Norton
IBM/PC
Built-in BIOS programs dated Monday, November 8, 1982
Operating under DOS 2.00
4 logical disk drives, A: through D:
The operating system reports 512K of memory
A test of random access memory (RAM) finds:
512K from hex paragraph 0000 to 8000
32K from hex paragraph B800 to C000
(some may be phantom memory)
BIOS signature found at hex paragraph C800
Programs are loaded at hex paragraph 1AF2
following 110,368 bytes of system memory
Computing performance index relative to IBM/PC: 1.7
C>
-----------------------------------
Zider Brothers, San Francisco.
17:21:44 9/23/1985
NEC V20 CPU chip - Pfaster286
Incompatible with Pfaster286 board.
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:02:55 Page 8
According to a telcon with Phoenix Software Associates, the
NEC V20 chip is incompatible with their Pfaster286
coprocessor board.
The Pfaster286 software uses the PUSHA (Push All)
instruction to determine if the chip in use is the 80286 or
the 8088. The 8088 gives an error if this instruction is
attempted. But the NEC V20 has implemented this instruction
(80186 instruction set) and gives no error. A revision to
the software (or hardware?) will be coming Real Soon Now.
Zider Brothers, San Francisco.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Just thought I'd add some further wood onto the fire
regarding the NEC V20. Although I do not support the issue
of hardware piracy, if the information above regarding
instruction set and architecture is correct, I must admit
that I too fail to see how one could claim it as a copy.
Instruction set compatability has been around since the
System 360 series came out.
Also, regarding the issue of selling below cost as a method
of attempting to destroy competitors was discussed in the
last issue. Although I can't prove that it applies in this
case, Japanese firms tend to make decisions based on long
term planning. Although any chip is expensive while a firm
is "ramping up", the cost is driven down by high demand and
improvements which cause higher yields. American history in
chip building bears this out. Zilog introduced the Z-80
series at about a tenth of the Intel product cost and
managed to survive over the long run.
Although I'm not trying to create a war, I would really like
to find out the straight story from someone who is more of a
student of MPU architecture and associated micro-code
regarding the issue of whether the V20 is an illegal copy or
not. Please feel free to enter any and all rebuttals in this
forum or on Node 115/333 directly (312-397-6888) or via
Fidomail.
Donald Larson
Sysop
Node 115/333 Attache Node
------------------------------------------------------------
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:02:57 Page 9
PRIVATE or PUBLIC
An ongoing debate
by Karl Schinke,
(sysop of The Wizards Tower, 107/16)
There has been a debate here at The Wizard's Tower, and
on other boards, Fido and non-Fido, as to whether to be
public, private, semi-private or whatever.
The question is this: we as Sysops of our boards are
responsible, and may in fact be legally liable, for the
content of our boards.
As much as we may desparage the current legal thinking,
it seems real enough that we have some obligation to keep
our boards legal.
The problem, of course, is that there is no known way
for a program to sieve the messages and files on a board for
their content, to determine if they represent "shady"
activities, so the Sysop must manually scan the stuff
periodically.
But even then, what do you do? You kill the message,
remove the file, etc. but by then, damage may have been
done, and you, dear sysop, have been unwitting accessory to
whatever. And what recourse do you have?
I spoke to my lawyer when I started the board. He
suggested posting a disclaimer (which we did) and close
scrutiny (which we do), but didn't think the disclaimer
would actually hold up in court, if it came to that.
We here at "The Tower" do not have a terrific answer to
share with you, but a policy which has (so far) seemed to
work: we register our users.
We don't care what username people log in with, thereby
preserving anonymity from other users, but we require that
users register their real names, addresses, and vox phone
numbers with us before they may download or leave messages.
The questionnaire explains the policy, and promises not
to use the information (sell a mailing list) or disclose it
to other users.
Unregistered users may read public messages, list the
files directory, etc... basically snoop around, and decide
whether they like the place before registering.
Initially, this was all we did. But we determined, by
spot-checks, that some users were lying- gave non- existant
addresses, phone numbers of people who didn't know a
computer from a cigarette machine, and so forth.
Consequently, we altered our policy to a verification
scheme, we call registrants by voice phone.
The premise, of course, is that if anyone misbehaves,
we've "got their number" and can point the fickle finger.
So far, all our users have been well behaved. Of course,
since the vast majority of BBS'ers are honest, well behaved
people, they may have been anyway. We can't actually tell
if we discouraged any "unwelcome guests".
A few one-time callers have left messages to sysop with
scatological or otherwise disparaging comment, but in the
main, folks seem to go along with us. The one problem, of
course, is the trouble we have of making those darn phone
calls!
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:02:59 Page 10
If anyone has an idea how we can protect ourselves
without all this hu-hu, please drop us a line, or a rebuttal
in this newsletter.
------------------------------------------------------------
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:02:59 Page 11
Corporate Nets and Nodes
As many of you realize, Fido has spread far beyond the
wildest imagination of any of the original planners whose
intent was to develop a hobbiest network. Fido and FidoNet
have caught the attention of many Fortune 500 Corporations.
Some are obvious from the nodelist and others are buried
under disquised names, some have 1000 series private nets
and others are out there doing their own thing.
Since the beginning of nodelist administration in St. Louis I
have attempted to keep records of the corporations that have
obtained Fido. We would like to share this list with our
users with the intent that perhaps we can obtain more
information for our database. If you have information on
these or other Fortune 500 Fido's that you would like to
pass on to 1/0 I would appreciate the data.
The list I currently have, which is not all verified, is as
follows:
3M
Bendix
Boeing
COMPAQ Computer
CONTEL
Department of Commerce
Dupont
Environmental Research Laboratory
GMCC
General Motors
Georgia-Pacific
Grumman
Honeywell
Hughes Aircraft
Internal Revenue Service
L5Net Gateway
McGraw Hill and BYTE Magazine
Mountain Bell (or whatever their new name is)
NASA
NOAA
National Park Services
Phoenix Software
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
TWA
US Professional Golfers Association
USRobotics
Ziff-Davis and PC-Week
plus many many more which I don't know about...
We would like to hear from our Corporate Fido's. Please
send a message to Ken Kaplan at 1/0 (314-576-2743).
Thanks for your support and keep spreading the word,
Ken Kaplan
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:03:01 Page 12
FidoNet Administrator
National Net (1/0)
------------------------------------------------------------
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:03:01 Page 13
Tom Jennings
Fido 125/1
30 Sept 85
NEC 'V' Series Processors: A review
I purchased a NEC V30 (the 8086 replacement; the V20
is the 8088 replacement) this past month, and was a bit
disappointed with the results I got.
The V20 is actually an 8088 pin compatible 80188
minus the onboard IO devices, and V30 ditto 8086. The
instructions marked "Enhanced" in the NEC documentation are
the new, Intel, 8018x instructions; the ones marked "Unique"
are unique to the NEC series. I have not compared clock
cycles V30 vs. 80186, etc, but I would bet they are the
same.
I was told of wondrous speed increases, though the
range was given as "5 - 80%", which of course means down in
the 5% range is what you get; this is of course what I
found.
I have a Multibuss based machine running an Intel
SBC86/12A processor card, which uses an 8086, and modified
to run at 7.3MHz. I run MSDOS 3.05 on it. I use it for all
my work, including compiling Fido, documentation, etc. I use
the Lattice compiler, which is a fine program though on the
slow side. I figured that if I could get a real life 20%
speed increase I'd be very happy.
It is not possible to do "seat of the pants" testing
with something like this; you have to set up SOME sort of
test. I did all testing on an empirical basis. I do not
use the Seive of Erasthenes, bubble sorts, or other arcane
things day to day. I edit, compile, and other things like
most everyone else.
One thing I do not do is use spreadsheets or other
"math intensive" programs. The V series chips will NOT
necessarily speed up programs that use (or could use) the
8087 coprocessor. You will hear that the V series chips are
substantially faster doing "math" than the Intel parts.
This is absolutely true, however, you will rarely see the
advertised speed increases supposedly possible.
The reason for the less than advertised speed
increase is that even in a program such as a spreadsheet,
the number of non-math instructions (jumps, logical
operations, bit testing, register and stack manipulation,
etc) that any CPU does far outnumbers the math type
instructions (multiply and divide mostly). Even if multiply
and divide took zero time, your programs would not take zero
minutes to execute.
This is not to say that there are not isolated
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:03:03 Page 14
incidents; this means that plugging in this chip, or any
other real or fictional device, will not get you monstrous
speed increases.
The tests I did are admittedly systems oriented
tasks, though they are very applicable to estimating the
performance you will get in normal, daily use. The tests are
as follows:
(a) Fido Compile. This consisted of a Lattice compile of
a number of Fido BBS modules, ones that it was convenient
(and easily repeatable) to cause a recompile. (I use a MAKE
type system, and I need to fool it.) This test was the "all
around" test; Lattice seems to spend less than 1/4th its
time doing disk IO, mostly it seems to be "working" with the
program source in memory. Lattice is a predominantly compute
bound program.
(b) LISTGEN NODELIST.256. This is definitely compute
bound; compiled BASIC string manipulation.
(c) ZAPLOAD FIDO_FID.EXE F FOO.HEX . ZAPLOAD is a
program that generates Intel HEX format. (ASCII
representation of a file.) It should be IO bound, but is not
due to poor programming. (What can I say?)
(d) SCAVENGE A: SCAVENGE reads all blocks of a disk and
maps out bad sectors. My A: is a 10 meg hard disk, an
extremely fast one. This is definitely IO bound, with very
optimal drivers. This is a "control" test, and should not
vary, since the speed of executions is limited by the disk
not the processor.
(e) Assemble the Multibuss BIOS. The BIOS of my
Multibuss box is about 20 .ASM source files. MASM.EXE is
very definitely compute bound. (Which by the way is the
worst assembler anyone will ever see. It should be IO
bound!)
I performed these five tests first with the 8086
installed, then after replacing the 8086 with the V30. No
other changes were made. Timing was done by a special
program that keeps a millisecond counter that I use for
general benchmarking, and is highly accurate and repeatable.
here are the results:
TEST 8086 V30 Change
(a) Compile Fido BBS 43:10 40:53 5.5%
(b) Listgen 04:23 04:08 6.0%
(c) Zapload 08:36 08:42 -1.1%
(d) Scavenge 04:14 04:14 0%
(e) Assemble BIOS 05:23 05:07 5.2%
The results are pretty clear, and are verifiable.
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:03:05 Page 15
SCAVENGE is SCAV23X.COM, LISTGEN is John Warren's program,
ZAPLOAD should be out there somewhere, Lattice and MASM you
can find.
I cannot account for the ZAPLOAD test. It should
not have slowed down. It may be an anomaly.
Anyone who uses MASM knows that it is terribly slow,
and for some unknown reason compute bound. (An assembler?!)
It is written in Microsoft Pascal, so I guess that's it.
An 8087 will NOT speed up when using the V30/V20
series. It runs at its own clock rate.
------------------------------------------------------------
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:03:05 Page 16
Robert Lederman
Met-Chem Fido 16/42
NEW FIDO SYSOP UTILITIES FOR YOU
---=----=-----=---------=---=---
I have written two pretty slick Fido SYSOP utilities that
can save you an enormous amount of time in maintaining your
system. Come and get 'em!
SHUFFLE redirects files and their corresponding FILES.BBS
entries among download directories. SHUFFLE also permits
rudimentary editing of file entries a la EDLIN, and will
incorporate "orphan" files into FILES.BBS. I think SHUFFLE
is far superior to similar programs available elsewhere.
READQUES reads ANSWERS.BBS (or ANEWUSER.BBS if the bug in
Fido 11 is ever fixed), displays the caller's statistics
from USER.BBS along with the questionnaire responses, and
prompts the sysop to upgrade the caller's access or mark
that record for deletion. Admitting new users to semi-
private systems is now a breeze.
Both programs can be used either locally using ANSI.SYS or
remotely using ANSI/VT100/VT52 emulation. This is key for
people like me who live far away from the Fidos they
maintain.
You can get SHUFFLE (v1.3) and READQUES (v1.1) by calling
the Met-Chem BBS at 203/281-7287 (2400/1200 baud).
Robert Lederman
sysop, 16/42
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:03:07 Page 17
============================================================
COLUMNS
============================================================
A long time ago... on a node far, far away (from PDPvax)
XXXXX XXXXXX XXXX
X X X X X
X X XXXXX X
X X X X
X X X X X
XXXXX XXXXXX XXXX
X X XX XXXXX XXXX
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X XXXX
X XX X XXXXXX XXXXX X
XX XX X X X X X X
X X X X X X XXXX
The even further adventures of Luke Vaxhacker Episode n+2
The Milliamp Falcon hurtles on thru system space...
Con Solo finished checking the various control and
status registers, finally convinced himself that they had
lost the Bus Signals as they passed the terminator. As he
returned from the I/O page, he smelled smoke. Solo wasn't
concerned--the Bookie always got a little hot under the
collar when he was losing at chess. In fact, RS232 had just
executed a particularly clever MOV that had blocked the
Bookie's data paths. The Bookie, who had been setting the
odds on the game, was caught holding all the cards. A
little strange for a chess game...
Across the room, Luke was too busy practicing bit-slice
technique to notice the commotion.
"On a word boundary, Luke," said PDP-1. "Don't just hack
at it. Remember, the Bytesaber is the weapon of the Red-eye
Night. It is used to trim offensive lines of code. Excess
handwaving won't get you anywhere. Listen for the Carrier."
Luke turned back to the drone, which was humming quietly
in the air next to him. This time Luke's actions
complemented the drone's attacks perfectly.
Con Solo, being an unimaginative hacker, was not
impressed. "Forget this bit-slicing stuff. Give me a good
PROM blaster any day."
"~~j~~hhji~~," Said Kenobie, with no clear inflection.
He fell silent for a moment, and reasserted his control.
"What happened?" asked Luke
"Strange," said PDP-1. "I felt a momentary glitch in the
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:03:09 Page 18
carrier. It's equalized now."
"We're coming up on user space," called Solo from the
CSR. As they cruised safely thru stack frames, they emerged
in the new context only to be bombarded by freeblocks."
"What the..." gasped Solo. The screen showed clearly:
/usr/alderaan: not found "It's the right inode, but it's
been cleared! Twoie, where's the nearest file?"
"3 to 5 there's one..." The Bookie started to say, but
was interrupted by a bright flash off to the left.
"Imperial TTY fighters!" Shouted Solo. "A whole DZ of
them! Where are they coming from?"
"Can't be far from the host system," said Kenobie. "They
all have direct EIA connections."
As Solo began to give chase, the ship lurched suddenly.
Luke noticed the link count was at 3 and climbing rapidly.
"This is no regular file," murmered Kenobie. "Look at
the ODS directory structure ahead! They seem to have in a
tractor beam."
"There's no way we'll unlink in time," Said Solo. "We're
going in..."
TO BE CONTINUED???
FIDONEWS -- 07 Oct 85 03:03:10 Page 19
============================================================
NOTICES
============================================================
The Interrupt Stack
27 Oct 1985
2 AM - Change from Daylight Savings Time to Standard
time. You should change your system clock before mail
hour this date.
27 Nov 1985
Halley's Comet passes closest to Earth before perihelion.
24 Jan 1986
Voyager 2 passes Uranus.
9 Feb 1986
Halley's Comet reaches perihelion.
11 Apr 1986
Halley's Comet reaches perigee.
19 May 1986
Steve Lemke's next birthday.
24 Aug 1989
Voyager 2 passes Neptune.
If you have something which you would like to see on this
calendar, please send a message to Fido 107/7.
Download original FidoNews · Volume 2 (1985) · ← Previous · Next →