Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!labtam!eyrie!phoenix!terminal
From: terminal@phoenix.pub.uu.oz.au (Bernard Leach)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: What's Wrong with ARP!!!
Message-ID: <1990Dec17.111031.4903@phoenix.pub.uu.oz.au>
Date: 17 Dec 90 11:10:31 GMT
References: <5435.2760c937@zeus.unomaha.edu>
Organization: Phoenix ComSystem. Public UNIX Melbourne Australia.
Lines: 24

In <5435.2760c937@zeus.unomaha.edu> bacon@zeus.unomaha.edu writes:

Hi all, 

>Hasn't the point about ARP been made moot since WB 2.0 (soon to be 2.1)
>has been incorporated in toto into it??
> 

Well like you said thats what we HOPE, I for one havent actually heard much
of the DOS side of 2.0.  Maybe someone can let us in on the secrets?

>For those of us who may be less than enlightened, like you, would you 
>mind telling us what some of the pitfalls of using ARP are?  Especially
>since you are carrying this conversation publicly on NEWS.

ARP does actually have some nasty bugs hiding in there. The only one I have
specifically traced is one with the newcli/newshell function.  I dont really
know what the problem is but the symptoms include stack overflows and memory
related gurus.

Well anyhow hopefully 2.0 will have upgraded dos commands and we will not
need arp.

bernard.