Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #157154 > unrolled thread

the IBM keyboard

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  the IBM keyboard rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-08-31 03:00 +0200
    Re: the IBM keyboard Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> - 2015-08-31 03:20 +0200
      Re: the IBM keyboard rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-08-31 03:40 +0200
        Re: the IBM keyboard Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-08-31 06:20 +0200
          Re: the IBM keyboard Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> - 2015-08-31 06:50 +0200
        Re: the IBM keyboard Stuart Longland <stuartl@longlandclan.yi.org> - 2015-09-03 23:30 +0200
      Re: the IBM keyboard Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2015-08-31 17:00 +0200
    Re: the IBM keyboard Carl Fink <carl@finknetwork.com> - 2015-08-31 03:30 +0200
      Re: the IBM keyboard David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-08-31 04:40 +0200
        Re: the IBM keyboard rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-08-31 05:40 +0200
        Re: the IBM keyboard David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-08-31 06:20 +0200
        Re: the IBM keyboard Stuart Longland <stuartl@longlandclan.yi.org> - 2015-09-03 23:30 +0200

#157154 — the IBM keyboard

On Sun, August 30, 2015 10:42 pm, Doug wrote:
> What you need is an IBM model M keyboard. They are refurbished and sold
> by Clicky Keys:
> http://www.clickykeyboards.com/

I learned to touch-type in 1963, in highschool, on a manual keybar machine
with QWERTY keyboard and blank keycaps; I was the best typist in the class
(90 to 100 wpm).  Over the years I have used manual and portable keybar
machines and the marvelous IBM Correcting Selectric II.  Then I moved, in
succession, to an IBM memory typewriter, an early dedicated word
processing system by Exxon, and then to a very expensive professional word
processing system, which I believe was manufactured by
Addressorgraph-Multigraph.  My next system was a floppy-based IBM-PC
running version 1.0 of M$ Word for DO$, which I purchased sometime in the
interval 1980-1983.

Thankfully, shortly after acquiring the IBM-PC, I switched to the Dvorak
keymap, using dedicated (custom firmware) Dvorak keyboards.  But by the
time that I had worn out several of the dedicated keyboards, keymapping
software became available for the M$ DO$ environment.

Eventually, at the stroke of midnight on 31 December A.D. 1999, M$ Word
5.0 for DO$ began writing garbage to the data files.  This is one of the
very few genuine "Y2K" bugs.  M$ had no patch, but offered instead a free
copy of Word 5.5.  But who in his right mind would migrate to 5.5?  Word
5.0 was the last version of Word for DO$ which could be used without aid
of the rodent, and a rodent is anathema to efficiency.

Hundreds of Word 5.0 documents had to be abandoned, because, even in the
present day, while it is possible to convert Word 5.0 documents to plain,
unformatted ASCII, there appears to be no automated method to convert the
convoluted proprietary M$ scheme of encoding to another format while
preserving (via markup) vital formatting such as italic and boldface.  And
the labour of manual editing to add markup for italic and boldface was
prohibitive, not to mention the subsequent proofreading).

So that fiasco led me to Linux and gave me the determination never again
to fall into the trap of proprietary software and proprietary encoding
schemes.  The use of plain text and markup is the only safe and sane
approach to word processing.

==========================

Anyway, all this history comes to mind because I recall that there is
something really strange about the IBM keyboard -- at least to anyone who
types by touch.  Looking today at a photograph of a mode M, I think that
the problem is that IBM reduced the width of the left-hand shift key, in
order to accommodate a < > key.

This is something which, for me, destroys the usefulness of the Model M. 
And keymapping cannot correct the fact that two keycaps occupy the space
in which the fingers of a touch typist expect to find only one keycap.

But this blunder is typical of IBM, who at times has done stupid things to
accommodate stupid customers.  A similar blunder was the IBM
implementation of the Dvorak keyboard for the original Selectric.  August
Dvorak arranged the keys of the numeric row in the order 751902468 .  But
IBM implemented a "modified" Dvorak keyboard in which the keys of the
numeric row are in the order 123456780 .  With original Dvorak layout,
numbers are typed easily and with few errors, while in the IBM layout,
even a good typist has difficulty with numbers.

By the way, xkb provides not only the "modified" layout, but also the
"Dvorak Classic" layout.

RLH

-- 
Be ware of confounding ignorance and stupidity.  Ignorance may be
corrected by instruction and education.  But there is no remedy for
stupidity.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#157155

Oh joy!  forgive my nose, especially since I missed this post at first.
Still, I am typing right now, this very moment, on a real IBM clicky 
keyboard!
However the cable is starting to fray,  and I was wondering if I would be 
able to replace this treasure...i. have. had. this. for. a. very! long 
time.
Anyway, your link to this company may be a solution and I am sososososo 
happy!
thanks,
Kare


On Sun, 30 Aug 2015, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:

> On Sun, August 30, 2015 10:42 pm, Doug wrote:
>> What you need is an IBM model M keyboard. They are refurbished and sold
>> by Clicky Keys:
>> http://www.clickykeyboards.com/
>
> I learned to touch-type in 1963, in highschool, on a manual keybar machine
> with QWERTY keyboard and blank keycaps; I was the best typist in the class
> (90 to 100 wpm).  Over the years I have used manual and portable keybar
> machines and the marvelous IBM Correcting Selectric II.  Then I moved, in
> succession, to an IBM memory typewriter, an early dedicated word
> processing system by Exxon, and then to a very expensive professional word
> processing system, which I believe was manufactured by
> Addressorgraph-Multigraph.  My next system was a floppy-based IBM-PC
> running version 1.0 of M$ Word for DO$, which I purchased sometime in the
> interval 1980-1983.
>
> Thankfully, shortly after acquiring the IBM-PC, I switched to the Dvorak
> keymap, using dedicated (custom firmware) Dvorak keyboards.  But by the
> time that I had worn out several of the dedicated keyboards, keymapping
> software became available for the M$ DO$ environment.
>
> Eventually, at the stroke of midnight on 31 December A.D. 1999, M$ Word
> 5.0 for DO$ began writing garbage to the data files.  This is one of the
> very few genuine "Y2K" bugs.  M$ had no patch, but offered instead a free
> copy of Word 5.5.  But who in his right mind would migrate to 5.5?  Word
> 5.0 was the last version of Word for DO$ which could be used without aid
> of the rodent, and a rodent is anathema to efficiency.
>
> Hundreds of Word 5.0 documents had to be abandoned, because, even in the
> present day, while it is possible to convert Word 5.0 documents to plain,
> unformatted ASCII, there appears to be no automated method to convert the
> convoluted proprietary M$ scheme of encoding to another format while
> preserving (via markup) vital formatting such as italic and boldface.  And
> the labour of manual editing to add markup for italic and boldface was
> prohibitive, not to mention the subsequent proofreading).
>
> So that fiasco led me to Linux and gave me the determination never again
> to fall into the trap of proprietary software and proprietary encoding
> schemes.  The use of plain text and markup is the only safe and sane
> approach to word processing.
>
> ==========================
>
> Anyway, all this history comes to mind because I recall that there is
> something really strange about the IBM keyboard -- at least to anyone who
> types by touch.  Looking today at a photograph of a mode M, I think that
> the problem is that IBM reduced the width of the left-hand shift key, in
> order to accommodate a < > key.
>
> This is something which, for me, destroys the usefulness of the Model M.
> And keymapping cannot correct the fact that two keycaps occupy the space
> in which the fingers of a touch typist expect to find only one keycap.
>
> But this blunder is typical of IBM, who at times has done stupid things to
> accommodate stupid customers.  A similar blunder was the IBM
> implementation of the Dvorak keyboard for the original Selectric.  August
> Dvorak arranged the keys of the numeric row in the order 751902468 .  But
> IBM implemented a "modified" Dvorak keyboard in which the keys of the
> numeric row are in the order 123456780 .  With original Dvorak layout,
> numbers are typed easily and with few errors, while in the IBM layout,
> even a good typist has difficulty with numbers.
>
> By the way, xkb provides not only the "modified" layout, but also the
> "Dvorak Classic" layout.
>
> RLH
>
> -- 
> Be ware of confounding ignorance and stupidity.  Ignorance may be
> corrected by instruction and education.  But there is no remedy for
> stupidity.
>
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157157

On Sun, August 30, 2015 8:18 pm, Karen Lewellen wrote:
> Oh joy!  forgive my nose, especially since I missed this post at first.
> Still, I am typing right now, this very moment, on a real IBM clicky
> keyboard! However the cable is starting to fray,  and I was wondering if I
> would be able to replace this treasure...i. have. had. this. for. a. very!
> long time. Anyway, your link to this company may be a solution and I am
> sososososo happy! thanks, Kare

If the only problem is a cable, all you need to do is find a local
technician who can replace the cable with the cable from one of the
chinese keyboards which someone has tossed into the dumpster.

Of course, most keyboards nowadays are USB.  But most of us (myself
included) have in the closet a keyboard or two which uses the old-style
connector, if that is what you need.

The technician would take the back cover off the keyboard, clip the leads
of the old cable, attach the leads of the replacement cable, and replace
the back cover.  Soldering may be necessary, but that is simple for any
technician.  A fifteen-minute repair.

For a local technicial, ask around.  Almost any amateur radio operator
should be competent.  Look around your neighbourhood for a house with a
large antenna or for a car with an amateur radio license plate.

Failing that, if you have a local radio or television station, walk in
with you keyboard in hand (and the old keyboard from which you are going
to scavange the cable) and ask to see the technician.

The cost of the repair?  A box of donuts should do it.

RLH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157166

On 08/30/2015 08:39 PM, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> On Sun, August 30, 2015 8:18 pm, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>> Oh joy!  forgive my nose, especially since I missed this post at first.
>> Still, I am typing right now, this very moment, on a real IBM clicky
>> keyboard! However the cable is starting to fray,  and I was wondering if I
>> would be able to replace this treasure...i. have. had. this. for. a. very!
>> long time. Anyway, your link to this company may be a solution and I am
>> sososososo happy! thanks, Kare

The model M that I am typing on right now was made in 1964 (!) and it
has a connector for the cable, so the company that refurbishes them can
probably supply a cable, saving you the cost of a whole keyboard. Check yours,
of course--I don't know if they were all made this way. If you contact the
firm, you should first get all the numbers, etc. off your keyboard to
get them "on board," so to speak.

--doug

>
> If the only problem is a cable, all you need to do is find a local
> technician who can replace the cable with the cable from one of the
> chinese keyboards which someone has tossed into the dumpster.
>
> Of course, most keyboards nowadays are USB.  But most of us (myself
> included) have in the closet a keyboard or two which uses the old-style
> connector, if that is what you need.
>
> The technician would take the back cover off the keyboard, clip the leads
> of the old cable, attach the leads of the replacement cable, and replace
> the back cover.  Soldering may be necessary, but that is simple for any
> technician.  A fifteen-minute repair.
>
> For a local technicial, ask around.  Almost any amateur radio operator
> should be competent.  Look around your neighbourhood for a house with a
> large antenna or for a car with an amateur radio license plate.
>
> Failing that, if you have a local radio or television station, walk in
> with you keyboard in hand (and the old keyboard from which you are going
> to scavange the cable) and ask to see the technician.
>
> The cost of the repair?  A box of donuts should do it.
>
> RLH
>
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157171

Hi Doug,
What a fine idea!
I would  much rather give this gem of a company  my business than hunt 
aimlessly  for someone to repair the cable as suggested by others.
i am sure mine does not go that far back...yours must be such fun.  Will 
get the  numbers though and reach out to them.
Thanks,
kare


On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Doug wrote:

>
>
> On 08/30/2015 08:39 PM, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
>>  On Sun, August 30, 2015 8:18 pm, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>> >  Oh joy!  forgive my nose, especially since I missed this post at first.
>> >  Still, I am typing right now, this very moment, on a real IBM clicky
>> >  keyboard! However the cable is starting to fray,  and I was wondering if 
>> >  I
>> >  would be able to replace this treasure...i. have. had. this. for. a. 
>> >  very!
>> >  long time. Anyway, your link to this company may be a solution and I am
>> >  sososososo happy! thanks, Kare
>
> The model M that I am typing on right now was made in 1964 (!) and it
> has a connector for the cable, so the company that refurbishes them can
> probably supply a cable, saving you the cost of a whole keyboard. Check 
> yours,
> of course--I don't know if they were all made this way. If you contact the
> firm, you should first get all the numbers, etc. off your keyboard to
> get them "on board," so to speak.
>
> --doug
>
>>
>>  If the only problem is a cable, all you need to do is find a local
>>  technician who can replace the cable with the cable from one of the
>>  chinese keyboards which someone has tossed into the dumpster.
>>
>>  Of course, most keyboards nowadays are USB.  But most of us (myself
>>  included) have in the closet a keyboard or two which uses the old-style
>>  connector, if that is what you need.
>>
>>  The technician would take the back cover off the keyboard, clip the leads
>>  of the old cable, attach the leads of the replacement cable, and replace
>>  the back cover.  Soldering may be necessary, but that is simple for any
>>  technician.  A fifteen-minute repair.
>>
>>  For a local technicial, ask around.  Almost any amateur radio operator
>>  should be competent.  Look around your neighbourhood for a house with a
>>  large antenna or for a car with an amateur radio license plate.
>>
>>  Failing that, if you have a local radio or television station, walk in
>>  with you keyboard in hand (and the old keyboard from which you are going
>>  to scavange the cable) and ask to see the technician.
>>
>>  The cost of the repair?  A box of donuts should do it.
>>
>>  RLH
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157385

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 31/08/15 11:39, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> On Sun, August 30, 2015 8:18 pm, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>> Oh joy!  forgive my nose, especially since I missed this post at
>> first. Still, I am typing right now, this very moment, on a real
>> IBM clicky keyboard! However the cable is starting to fray,  and
>> I was wondering if I would be able to replace this treasure...i.
>> have. had. this. for. a. very! long time. Anyway, your link to
>> this company may be a solution and I am sososososo happy! thanks,
>> Kare
> 
> If the only problem is a cable, all you need to do is find a local 
> technician who can replace the cable with the cable from one of
> the chinese keyboards which someone has tossed into the dumpster.
> 
> Of course, most keyboards nowadays are USB.  But most of us
> (myself included) have in the closet a keyboard or two which uses
> the old-style connector, if that is what you need.

The other thing that might work if you can't get a PS/2 keyboard cable.

Get some 5-core shielded cable and a DIN-5 connector.  Solder that up
to replace the faulty keyboard cable.  Then use a DIN-5 → PS/2 adapter
to plug it into your PS/2 socket.
- -- 
Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL)

I haven't lost my mind...
  ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iJ4EARMKAAYFAlXoufIACgkQoCQEvFhlDPmhrgH/dk7eK8msLJDTsSXng8FuCl1O
3v3bEvIkqILLHOWpHy1vNhLiYjZrAz2kPXs28ORXXQp92buCyUhAC2fNXTEdSQH/
WuNWZSD3Fx23Tqwj0ycSQxcaFxE0/81PyqJToVw9bSPiKOpg0cnwrujIYI4GqWvB
j7QK/ayQiGSoFy5QCf7CmA==
=vTym
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157221

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 09:18:42PM -0400, Karen Lewellen wrote:
> Oh joy!  forgive my nose, especially since I missed this post at first.
> Still, I am typing right now, this very moment, on a real IBM clicky
> keyboard!
> However the cable is starting to fray,  and I was wondering if I
> would be able to replace this treasure...i. have. had. this. for. a.
> very! long time.
> Anyway, your link to this company may be a solution and I am
> sososososo happy!

You can also buy new ones at http://www.pckeyboard.com from
Unicomp, in both PS/2 and USB models.

(and other variants: TrackPoint, trackball, 122-key, and most of
these in either black or white bodies)

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157156

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 07:54:11PM -0500, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:

> Eventually, at the stroke of midnight on 31 December A.D. 1999, M$ Word
> 5.0 for DO$ began writing garbage to the data files.  This is one of the
> very few genuine "Y2K" bugs.  M$ had no patch, but offered instead a free
> copy of Word 5.5.  But who in his right mind would migrate to 5.5?  Word
> 5.0 was the last version of Word for DO$ which could be used without aid
> of the rodent, and a rodent is anathema to efficiency.

This is not supported by evidence, e.g.
<http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sjost/csc423/examples/anova/efficiency.pdf>

Jacob Nielsen has argued that people _feel_ more efficient using just the
keyboard, but objective measurements don't agree.
-- 
Carl Fink                           nitpicking@nitpicking.com 

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com.  Reviews!  Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157160

Quoting Carl Fink (carl@finknetwork.com):
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 07:54:11PM -0500, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> 
> > Eventually, at the stroke of midnight on 31 December A.D. 1999, M$ Word
> > 5.0 for DO$ began writing garbage to the data files.  This is one of the
> > very few genuine "Y2K" bugs.  M$ had no patch, but offered instead a free
> > copy of Word 5.5.  But who in his right mind would migrate to 5.5?  Word
> > 5.0 was the last version of Word for DO$ which could be used without aid
> > of the rodent, and a rodent is anathema to efficiency.
> 
> This is not supported by evidence, e.g.
> <http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sjost/csc423/examples/anova/efficiency.pdf>

I'm struggling to see how this reference backs up your assertion.
The use-case is not word-processing (Word) where both hands are
expected to be on the keys most of the time. This study prepared the
hands on the mouse (for the mouse method) in advance (penultimate
paragraph). This might be sensible if you were dealing with
Illustrator/CorelDraw etc but not word processing.

Looking at the size of some toolbars nowadays, and the proportion of
real estate left for the text, it's arguable that the desirability of
a toolbar is moot. So the very last sentence supports the keyboard.

Moving back to the antepenultimate paragraph, 90 trials might be an
adequate number for some ad hoc banking application involving US
states, but can hardly be considered adequate for a power-user (like
RLH) of a textual application where individual commands that have been
used hundreds of times will be typed without any conscious effort at
all, rather like a pianist plays ornaments.

> Jacob Nielsen has argued that people _feel_ more efficient using just the
> keyboard, but objective measurements don't agree.

This statement has no context by which to judge it.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157163

On Sun, August 30, 2015 9:29 pm, David Wright wrote:
> ...
> but can hardly be considered adequate for a power-user of a
> textual application where individual commands that have been used hundreds
> of times will be typed without any conscious effort at all, rather like a
> pianist plays ornaments.

In that epoch of my career I was running Window$ (95 or 98 or whatever) --
rodent and all -- on a second machine, for typesetting with Aldus (now
Adobe) PageMaker.  The work of composition, however, was done exclusively
on a DO$ machine running Word 5.0.

This all was in the day before the advent of low-cost Ethernet with
multi-conductor cables terminated in RJ-45 connectors; back then,
networking generally was done with coaxial cable.  But nonetheless, I had
a network connecting the two machines -- "sneaker net".

So when an error by me or a blunder by PageMaker was discovered in the
typeset output, I would go back to the "master" document in Word 5.0, make
a change, and then copy the revised document file to floppy.  (I think
that, by that time, 3.5 inch floppies had become common, if not the
standard.)  Next, I would "network" the floppy to the drive of the Window$
machine, load the file into PageMaker, and typeset the document again.



So even still today I am amazed by the ability in Debian to make a
mouseless edit with EMacs, then, with a keystroke or two, switch to the
terminal and typeset with a single command, and finally, with another
keystroke, switch to the xdvi window and see the change -- all in a matter
of seconds.

Having learned PageMaker on the Macintosh and subsequently having migrated
to PageMaker on the IBM-PC, I can say from experience that (at least, back
then) PageMaker could not hold a candle to LaTeX.  LaTeX was far more
simple to use, and LaTeX produced far better quality of typesetting.

So in the end, that Y2K bug in M$ Word 5.0 turned out to be a great
blessing, and nothing less than Providential.

RLH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157167

[This quotes the missing post, which was accidentally sent off-list, in full]

Quoting Carl Fink (carl@finknetwork.com):
> 
> 
> On 08/30/2015 10:29 PM, David Wright wrote:
> >Quoting Carl Fink (carl@finknetwork.com):
> >>On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 07:54:11PM -0500, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> >>
> >>>Eventually, at the stroke of midnight on 31 December A.D. 1999, M$ Word
> >>>5.0 for DO$ began writing garbage to the data files.  This is one of the
> >>>very few genuine "Y2K" bugs.  M$ had no patch, but offered instead a free
> >>>copy of Word 5.5.  But who in his right mind would migrate to 5.5?  Word
> >>>5.0 was the last version of Word for DO$ which could be used without aid
> >>>of the rodent, and a rodent is anathema to efficiency.
> >>This is not supported by evidence, e.g.
> >><http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sjost/csc423/examples/anova/efficiency.pdf>
> >I'm struggling to see how this reference backs up your assertion.
> I doubt it.

You may doubt it, but I have set out why I think the last three
paragraphs of the conclusions carry more weight in favour of the
keyboard than against it. All you have done is name the file.

> 
> Here's Bruce Tognazzini (Nielsen's colleague at the Nielsen-Norman
> Design Group) on the subject:
> http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html
> 
> Carl

Once again, you've just named a file and left it at that.

Looking at this page, the main argument against the keyboard appears
to be that someone spent "a cool $50 million of R & D on the Apple
Human Interface". There's no information about what was compared with
what, unlike in the efficiency.pdf reference.

Later on the author says "Regardless, you have presented the standard
argument that makes it seem logical that command keys would be
faster. Unfortunately, experimental evidence does not support the
argument." No reference.

But as far as *this* discussion is concerned (ie Word), he writes the
following:

"Hence, users achieve a significant productivity increase with the
mouse in spite of their subjective experience.

"Not that any of the above True Facts will stop the religious
wars. And, in fact, I find myself on the opposite side in at least one
instance, namely editing."

So the author agrees with RLH and not with you!

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157386

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 31/08/15 12:29, David Wright wrote:
>> This is not supported by evidence, e.g.
>>> <http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sjost/csc423/examples/anova/efficiency.pdf>
>
>>> 
I'm struggling to see how this reference backs up your assertion.
> The use-case is not word-processing (Word) where both hands are 
> expected to be on the keys most of the time. This study prepared
> the hands on the mouse (for the mouse method) in advance
> (penultimate paragraph). This might be sensible if you were dealing
> with Illustrator/CorelDraw etc but not word processing.

I must confess I agree with that statement.

Right tool for the job.  A keyboard makes a hopeless instrument for
free-hand placement and manipulation of objects, and a mouse makes a
very frustrating text input device.

If the activity you're performing is predominately a text/data entry
exercise, a keyboard-oriented UI is more useful.  If however, the
activity is more graphic oriented, the mouse becomes more appropriate.

Regards,
- -- 
Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL)

I haven't lost my mind...
  ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iJ4EARMKAAYFAlXouuwACgkQoCQEvFhlDPlOQwIAi5F9WLIlkZZbB1u7QYn4/J+d
Ygno/eFytZmPcGdvP2Cf4miDe0wmdEjjfA7zEXpR4PpsgFaOrs8vkcGg6ji01gH+
MnF8XNxNzGGXqV1r/BJrj39b7eQqqmmuPa1zchmxW7Oph05N4nJtSrtwcOmjf/6I
ZBHI/sgLsKf7jpfbuAjgVA==
=mtAr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web