Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!lll-lcc!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!steve
From: steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Patching uucico to WINDOWS 7 on Microport 2.2
Message-ID: <247@nuchat.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-Jul-87 19:13:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: nuchat.247
Posted: Wed Jul  1 19:13:42 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 10:53:07 EDT
References: <122@ddsw1.UUCP> <1614@stb.UUCP>
Organization: Public Access - Houston, Tx
Lines: 19
Keywords: Microport uucico patch
Summary: why not adb? why not indeed!
Xref: mnetor news.admin:668 comp.unix.wizards:3207

In article <1614@stb.UUCP>, michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes:
> In article <122@ddsw1.UUCP> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes:
> >Question: Why use DOS at all, and not 'patch'? Well, although patch documents
> >that it can use a hard address, we've been unable to get it to accept this
> >form of the command. Since uucico (and everything else) is stripped, you
> >cannot use a symbolic address.... thus the need for this route.
> 
> Better question: Why not use ADB? It can, quite nicely, patch executables
> (striped or unstripped), text files, inodes, superblocks, etc.

I can't think of a single good reason not to use adb.  There is one
overriding _bad_ reason, though.  It isn't in sysV.

	From now on, think of it as standard.
			-AT&T

	From now on, think of it a braindamaged.
			-Steve Nuchia
			{housun,{soma,academ}!uhnix1}!nuchat!steve