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