Answering msg from David Nugent to rowan crowe,
on Friday June 02 1995 at 13:08

 rc>> With all due respect David, experience does not mean
 rc>> that one cannot still be wrong or ill-informed about newer
 rc>> versions of software. :-)

 DN> Then perhaps, Rowan, you should "check your references" as per your
 DN> own advice and quote from that rather than citing your own anecdotal
 DN> 'experience'. You've done little but cloud the issue with 'maybes'
 DN> because you claim that one package on a few systems apparently works,
 DN> even though you don't really have any idea how it actually works
 DN> (since you don't have source code). You'll forgive me if I prefer to
 DN> trust in what I know and have have read over the last 10 or so years
 DN> rather than simply taking your word for it.

    Go back and read my message again. :) I did not claim only one package
worked, and in fact I gave you two examples. One of those programs I wrote
myself, and I disassembled the library to work out how it implemented
locking and unlocking. Standard INT 21h DOS FLOCK calls. Which *work* under
NetWare. That's all I'm saying.

 DN> Here's a simple test you can try for yourself: from a (raw) DOS box
 DN> logged onto a Novell LAN without a large partition (and without
 DN> explicitly loading share), run a program which calls the INT 2Fh
 DN> "install check" for SHARE.  If it works, then SHARE
support has been
 DN> linked into your shell. If it doesn't, then it demonstrates what I've
 DN> said. Simple, really.

    I was not disputing that NetWare *doesn't* support the INT 2Fh calls. I
was pointing out that the actual *locking* still works, even if NetWare has
no interest in INT 2Fh.

    This is from both a machine running DV with 2 tasks (no SHARE loaded),
and single task DOS workstations (no SHARE loaded).

---