Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!ems!pwcs!elric!hawkmoon!det
From: det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport
Subject: Re: Info needed: UNIX for 286/386 machines (really malloc)
Message-ID: <112@hawkmoon.MN.ORG>
Date: 7 Mar 88 13:55:54 GMT
References: <4213@sigi.Colorado.EDU> <863@athos.rutgers.edu> <141@bdt.UUCP> <165@bdt.UUCP>
Organization: One of the Eternal Champions - Richfield, Mn, USA
Lines: 18
Summary: i'd *much* rather have h+d than stock uucp

In article <165@bdt.UUCP>, david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) writes:
> Now that I know "standard" UUCP, how hard is it to learn, and setup HDB UUCP?

I would say that h+d uucp is just as easy ("hard"?) to set up as stock uucp.
In fact, its somewhat less frustrating.  I don't know about the rest of the
world, but after administrating experience with 6 machines, i have had day-time
nightmares concerning the "evil USERFILE".  Quite a few of my networking
problems went away after upgrading to h+d.  Principally, i don't have to spend
a lot of my time baby-sitting the connections, lest my disk runneth over (like
a babbling brook) from all the files sitting around waiting for the brain
damaged stock uucp to send them.  (it gets into wedged wait states fairly
easily, you see)

Anyway -- to summarize (and to cut myself off, mercifully) i think the change
over to h+d is well worth the time.

-- 
Derek Terveer	det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG	uunet!rosevax!elric!hawkmoon!det