From: robm@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Rob McCool)
Subject: Re: Question for net.views column in UNIX Today!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:15:08 GMT

bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) writes:
: 
: I don't see why a single-user oriented, multi-user capable system
: needs to be hard to service. 
: 
: Imagine Windows NT booting up (this in invented. I have no idea if it
: looks like this) with a login box pre-filled in with "user" for a user
: name. No password to begin with. There is a note that says "Press
: Enter to log in". This is understandable for anyone, and the system
: itself is protected from rogue programs during normal use. 
: 
: When you need to do upgrades etc., the docs will tell you to fill in
: the username "admin" instead and follow the instructions.
: 
: If you type some undefined username at the login box (or you request
: help), you are brought into a help session which explains how a "user"
: can have its own name and folder etc.
: 
: Compare this with a traditional multi-user approach like "login: ". 
: 
: I think an approach like this could "sneak" multi-user awareness (and
: protection) upon the heretofore unknowing public. Later, the public
: may even think that MicroSoft invented multi-user systems with
: protection.  For their purposes, they may think that with a
: certain amount of justification. 

I think you need to stop and think about what you're saying for a minute. 
  Windows 3.1 is hardly a "no-configure, right out of the box" sort of deal.
  If it was, or anything was, for you, then I am happy for you. But this is
  a wild fantasy shared by many people I've read, that one day computers will
  be infinitely powerful yet with the simplicity and ease of use that 
  everything will work smoothly, on the first try, with no hitches. 

I don't really think anything, including the Mac (though it's close), is like 
  that. While Windows and the Mac are more intuitive in some areas than UNIX 
  like configuration, etc., it still often takes some amazing backflips and 
  headaches to get everything working smoothly or working at all. And have 
  you ever seen an office full of people with business-related things to do 
  trying to figure out why WordPerfect won't print? Have an "admin" account 
  for people to configure stuff? What will they do when they buy their 
  third-party vendor hard drive that needs specific installation stuff? Or if 
  it gives them errors? Call tech support every ten two or three days when 
  something goes wrong?

: 
: What I mean is that I would like to have a more usable interface to
: the Unix core, instead of having to edit shell scripts and configuration
: files etc. A standard interface, preferrably. If Windows NT will bring
: nothing else, it may bring that.

So would everybody, it seems. I happen to like the NeXT interface for a simple
  interface to the beast of UNIX. A good example of why this will not work is
  SGI's sysadmin utilities. They're fine for adding users, and other simple
  stuff like that, but what if you want to set up DNS? Sendmail.cf? And how do
  I tell it to use the BSD lpr utilities instead of the SysV lp stuff without
  going to the command line? NeXT has a good interface, and for many users,
  they don't even have to see the command line, but for a lot of stuff you 
  still need to.

I still like a Sun or an SGI over a NeXT any day. I don't know what the best 
  UNIX interface will be, but I'd say Windows NT will most likely not float 
  the boat. At least, not for me. IMNSHO.

: 
: Bengt Larsson.
: -- 
: Bengt Larsson - bengtl@maths.lth.se


--Rob

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
Rob McCool: NCSA STG System Administrator
stgadmin@ncsa.uiuc.edu robm@ncsa.uiuc.edu r-mccool@uiuc.edu rmccool@imsa.edu
It was working ten minutes ago, I swear...
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.admin.policy,comp.sys.sun.admin