From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Oct 12 10:43:51 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA05209
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 10:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA05190;
          Sun, 12 Oct 1997 10:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA03401; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 10:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
To: S ren Schmidt <sos@sos.freebsd.dk>
cc: yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp (Kazutaka YOKOTA),
        phk@critter.freebsd.dk, rickl@ic.net, current@FreeBSD.ORG,
        sos@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: possible sc0 problem 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:01:41 +0200."
             <199710121701.TAA16233@sos.freebsd.dk> 
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 10:38:36 -0700
Message-ID: <3398.876677916@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Hmm, not that easy if its going to be configurable in the keymap
> UNLESS we invent a new row (hell SCO compatibility doesn't mean
> much anymore, now does it :) )

Certainly not if you're comparing it to current technology, no.  I'm
not even sure that SCO is all that compatible with SCO anymore. :-)

					Jordan