Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site down.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ulysses!allegra!princeton!down!honey
From: honey@down.UUCP (code 101)
Newsgroups: net.bugs.uucp
Subject: uucp vs. sytek (and switches in general)
Message-ID: <126@down.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Apr-84 22:20:41 EST
Article-I.D.: down.126
Posted: Tue Apr 10 22:20:41 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Apr-84 07:43:12 EST
References: <130@ism780.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. EECS
Lines: 13

my cohort had only minor troubles bringing up uucp on a sytek.  aside
from the fact that you have to configure it before it asserts carrier,
it's much like any other switch.  we run it at 9600 baud.

i forget who added sytek code (martin levy?), so i can't give proper
credit here.  this lends a minuscule bit of weight to ber's
conjecture:  because a lot of people worked on it for a long time,
honey danber is an example of software engineering rather than a hack.
	peter honeyman

my contribution to the "save the children" fund: this started out as
	Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
	Subject: Re: Orphaned Response - (nf)