HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 19:35:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.170048.12954@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.203618.4322@ncsu.edu>, linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu
>(John W. Linville) writes:
>|> 
>|> For that matter, if I provide the software, I can support multiple logins
>|> and
>|> restricted file access on my OS/2 (or even DOS) box.  Such software is often
>|> referred to as a BBS.  Heck, with IBM TCP/IP for OS/2, I can even support 
>|> simultaneous telnet (no access restriction) and ftp (restricted access to 
>|> directories) sessions coming into my machine.  Can NT do that?  Oh, I
>|> forgot,
>|> NT, the 'server OS,' only supports TCP/IP client stuff.
>|> 
>
>IBM TCP/IP 1.2.1 is good example for the lack of multiuser support
>in both OS/2 2.0 *AND* NT. When someone TELNETs to your machine
>you are asked for a password (no username) and someone who knows
>the password has *FULL* access to your machine. For FTP you have
>to create this TRUSERS file, which is valid for FTP and nothing
>else.
>
>I have asked several question about the multiuser features in NT
>in c.o.m.p.win32, but no one from MS could clarify this exactly.
>The only thing was, that there are interactive tasks and non-
>interactive task. Only non-interactive task can run on a different
>security level. I could not find out, what the criteria is for a
>task being interactive or not.
>
>So, I suppose, that not only OS/2 2.0, but NT too will have a lack
>in multi-user capability.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

NT does have this abilty,  they explained it to you repeatedly
in the win32 group, but you apparently still don't get it.
When they were talking about "interactive tasks", they mean ones
that are creating windows... and not surprisingly only one
user is authenticated by the daemon that handles windows
as the owner of that graphics session.

Ignore Linville, he's too prejudiced to understand anything.

There is no problem at all with having users telnet in as different
users.  Allistair Banks has explained this a million times... go
grep through old news in comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32.

>Christoph


Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7690 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2483
From: garyng@gnct.com (garyng)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS-ethics: MS-Windows 3.1 - silent upgrades
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 21:33:50 GMT
Organization: Global Network Communication Technology Co.

mph@plasma.apana.org.au (Martin Peter Howell) writes:

> RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at (FLATSCHER Rony) writes:
> 
> ...Lots of stuff deleted...
> 
> >Any hard-core Windows-user should by then give 32bit OS/2 a try. For them,
> >it is the best DOS- and Windows-multitasker for PCs available on the market.
> >one else, not even Microsoft, has a product which beats it. Imagin, true mul
> >tasking of your Windows-apps and the protection earned by an excellent
> >true operating system !
> 
> This is certainly true.  I am continually amazed at how much attention is
> given to the "soon to be released" Windows NT when OS/2 is available now
> and can do the same things that NT is claiming.  When NT is eventually 
> released it will be significantly behind OS/2 in terms of features/stability
> and will be handicapped by trying to conform to the Windows 3.1 interface.
> So why don't people just get hold of OS/2?  
> 
> -Martin.
> mph@plasma.apana.org.au

Because OS/2 is not that easy to get hold of. I am only a casual Window
user(only serious app. is W4W) and use Window as a multitasker. While OS/2's
smoothness in multitasking impress me(very good indeed), I tend to disagree
that it is more robust and stable than 3.1.

For NT, my experience is that it is more stable(I know this is very stupid
comment, especially in this group) than OS2. My experience ONLY.

-gary
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:01:14 GMT

In <1992Oct14.174540.6043@itsmail1.hamilton.edu> jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy) writes:

>In article <1992Oct13.153659.858@debet.nhh.no> si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no writes:
>>>>> Brian, you seem to indulge yourself too much in this point, but don't
>>>>> you think it is too early to predict?  OS/2 2.0 is out for six or seven
>>>>> months now.  Compared to Windows 3.x, it is a way too short a time...
>>>>
>>>>If you are comparing Windows 3.x apps against OS/2 2.0 apps. I believe one
>>>>have to count out all the OS2 1.x apps. to make it fair.
>>>>
>>>>-gary
>>>>
>>> 
>>> In that case, shouldn't you count Windows 2.x and even 1.x apps, too?
>>> 
>>> Min
>>Well, you could have - if windows 3.x supported them, which it does
>>not do.
>>
>>BTW OS/2 does... 
>>
>Okay, will all those who are forced to use Windows 1.x and 2.x apps
>whether because of poverty (can't afford to upgrade) or because there's
>no alternative and for whom the app won't run under 3.x please raise
>your hands?

>I don't see any hands, folks...

You should look a little more closely, Joe.  Mine is up.  I see
several others, too.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:03:55 EDT
From: Spiro the Spiny Goldfish <MXD118@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
 <1992Oct6.022026.16559@hellgate.utah.edu>
 <1992Oct09.044341.15025@microsoft.com>

In article <1992Oct09.044341.15025@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete
Skelly) says:
>
>Could you post evidence to support this claim (IBM was content to support
>both Windows and OS/2).
>Thanks...

Well, gee, they're selling systems here BUNDLED with Windows 3.1...
----
Mike Dahmus       MXD118@PSUVM  or  dahmus@cs.psu.edu
TEAM OS/2
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago 
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:37:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct09.181614.609@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <7523@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct07.185046.532@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>      MS's official word is all that the rest of us have to go on - 
                               ^^^
>>>anything else is idle speculation, without supporting evidence.
>>
>>Only if you don't believe in evaluating a company's actions as well as its
>>words. MS's actions speak louder, by far, than their words, and their actions
>>all say one thing: "FUD!"
  ^^^
>
>     You should know better than to use the word "all" to refer to
                                                   ^^^
>any topic...
>     Please prove that every action ever taken by Microsoft was
>designed to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
>
>

Hum.... I think he replied to your post in kind. 

Min
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:08:45 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>... and how am I related to Microsoft?

How about "Official NT Cheerleader". Maybe MS can send some pom-poms.

"Gimme an N. Gimme a T. Gimme an OS soon.
 Gimme an M. Gimme an S. Please, before next June!"

Tom
From: billt@cvedc.prime.com (Bill Tracy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: royalties paid on windows upgrade???
Summary: does/should MS get paid royalties if a windows user upgrades?
Keywords: royalties, upgrade
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:08:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: cvedc.1992Oct13.200851.13150
Organization: Computervision R&D, Beaverton OR

While reading some posts that mentioned royalties, it occured to
me that IBM may have a very sound reason for "discounting" windows
upgrades - maybe they don't pay a royalty for windows for THAT copy of
OS/2, since the customer ALREADY is a licensed user of windows.

This would lead to a mismatch in number of royalties paid to MS vs
copies of OS/2 that had sold.

So, an old copy of windows IS A GOOD THING - its a license for winos2
as well!?

Makes you wonder...


-- 


Bill Tracy 	                  ..tektronix!ogcvax!cvedc!wtracy
Prime Computer,Inc.			..sun!cvbnet!cvedc!wtracy
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: Bundling and the price of NT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:44:23 GMT

As I understand it, Fred is saying that Microsoft should have never planned to
include the server as a bundled part of the operating system because it drives
the price beyond where most of us want to pay for what we dont need.

Hugh, is saying that, Microsoft made a mistake 3 or so years ago, and
now rather than trying to make a real profit, Microsoft is meerly trying
to recover some of it's sunk costs.  And is quite correct in doing so.

Yep, in my opinion, both are right.  No need to keep up with a long winded
dialog if this is a fair (though not nitpickingly correct) statement of
their positions.

--Lowell
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 06:39:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.232108.18990@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.052735.869@leland.Stanford.EDU> jswang@leland.Stanford.EDU wrote:
>
>> 
>> Actually, I think I myself tend to "multitask preemptively" a lot.  Like when
>> I need to wait for something (for food to be cooked), I often would go
>> off and do something else, then come back after say five minutes.  If I
>> need to continue the wait, I'll just continue doing that something else, then
>> return to check again after a while.  Would you consider this "mulitasking
>> preemptively".
>> 
>
>Tell you what, though, try this.
>
>Sit down to do something like, say, your income taxes.  Get one of those
>kitchen timers, and set it for 5 minutes.  Do your taxes.  When the
>bell goes off, reset the timer, and go read the newspaper.  When the bell
>goes off, reset the timer again, and watch TV.  and so on, and so on.
>
>If you don't scramble your brains after a while, I'm impressed.
>
>Now, also, in your boiling water deal, wouldn't you much more prefer to
>set a timer, or have some sort of an alarm that goes off when the
>water is boiling.  I find it distracting to have to go back to check
>on boiling water more than one or two times.
>
>Now, if you did have an alarm of that type, wouldn't boiling water be
>more equivalent to sending a request to the disk controller, and then
>servicing the interrupt it generates when it's done.
>
>Okay, I've gone off on sort of a tangent here, but I guess I've tried to
>point out that preemptive multitasking is not the only method for doing
>things in the real world, as well as in the computer world.  And in some
>cases, it's not the best.
>

Actually, in OS/2, things are done in a way like the "bell-that-ring-
when-the-water-boils" you mentioned.  A process needs to wait for an event.
It blocks.  Some other process runs.  The event takes place and the blocked
process is then notified and gets ready to run.  Sounds pretty efficient
to me.

The thing is, if the event you're waiting for is for some other process to
relinquish control, it's like waiting for the cooperation and depend entirely
on someone who may or may not cooperate with you, if cooperative multitasking
is used.  

Theoretically, if the programmer programs perfectly, cooperative multitasking
can work pretty well.  In practise, due to the complexity of huge projects
and interaction with other programs, that is almost impossible.

As for better / different ways, I can't rule that out.  But it's not
cooperative multitasking.

Just my two cents.

>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:31:36 GMT

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.012337.28592@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>>In truth OS/2 users should thank Microsoft for their actions.
>>If they had not left OS/2 development, IBM would not have been
>>forced to give the inventive crowd inside IBM the free hand
>>they had so long been denied.  Only when an embarrased IBM
>>had OS/2 2.0 dumped back in their lap did they commit to a
>>32-bit OS being THE platform of choice.

>The specs for OS/2 2.0 were laid out three years ago.  I read about it
>in MSJ when they were first anounced.  Long before MS decided to
>leave.  They didn't cause anything here.

Here's a quote from the OS/2 Notebook by Microsoft Press, copyright
1990.  The interview showed up in MSJ before the OS/2 Notebook so it
was probably sometime in 1989 (if somebody has an exact date, you're
welcome to post it).  (This was before the split - both Gates and
Cannavino were interviewed together)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Developer:  What is your timetable for the 32-bit version of OS/2?
Early code?  Customer shipment?  Applications that take advantage of
it from either of your companies?

Cannavino:  We intend to deliver a 32-bit version of OS/2 in 1990.
In the meantime, we have made a software development kit available.
It contains early OS/2 2.0 system code, an assembler and C compiler,
and some programming tools.  Developers who buy it will also receive
a ship-level copy of OS/2 2.0 at general availability.

Also,

Developer:  What do you think are the relative market sizes for the two
versions of OS/2 [16-bit and 32-bit versions]?

Cannavino:  OS/2 1.2 will continue to have a role as an entry level
OS/2 system.  Users needing a more powerful operating environment
should use OS/2 2.0.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

It sure sounds to me like David's right - IBM was behind 32-bit OS/2
long before the split.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:36:10 GMT

In <1992Oct08.093117.16889@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>In article <wiegand.718468086@lido16> wiegand@rtsg.mot.com wrote:

>> 
>> The large start up cost must be recovered from the product sales
>> if the company is to stay in business. To make money:
>> 	selling_price > start_up_cost / number_sold
>> 
>> Selling price depends on both the seller and the buyer. If the seller
>> can't cover his costs at the price the buyer is willing to pay then
>> he will not produce the product. No one gives things away for free.
>> 
>> *Any* feature you a product has to either raise the selling cost or lower
>> your profit. So, either the networking feature is included in the selling
>> price, or Microsoft is planning on loseing money on their networking
>> software. Personally, I would expect the first to be true. No company
>> stays in business long by loseing money.

>Most features you add to a product will sell more copies, otherwise, why
>bother?

Bundled networking isn't going to sell more copies of NT than if
networking were separate.

>That in turn, will spread the total development cost over more copies,
>potentially lowering the price below that which it may have sold at
>before the feature was added.

Yes, by having people who don't want that feature pay for it anyway.
THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT WITH BUNDLED NETWORKING.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Bundling and the price of NT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:01:57 GMT

In <14OCT92.20867480.0059@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> Hugh Whalen <HWHA@UNB.CA> writes:

>I will repeat this one more time. THE PROPER STRATEGY IS TO MAXIMIZE
>REVENUE MINUS THE VARIABLE COSTS SUCH AS PRODUCTION, MARKETING AND
>SUPPORT. SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS ARE A CONSTANT THIS STRATEGY
>WILL PRODUCE MAXIMUM PROFITS (OR MINIMUM LOSS). YOU ARE CONSIDERING
>SOMETHING WHICH IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DECISION.

Ok, accepting this for the moment, let's get back to specifics. 
Bundling the network software will increase the on-going variable costs
of production, marketing, and, especially, support.  Thus the argument
that the "sunk" costs can be ignored once the system has been developed
is irrelevant to the question of whether bundling the network will
affect the price of the OS.  Also, support and maintenance costs usually
bear a linear relationship to the development costs.  This the
development costs can be used to get a rough estimate of the ongoing
costs.

Now obviously, the final sale price of the product is going to be
determined by the attempt to maximize profit, rather than an attempt to
recoup even the ongoing costs.  However, the ongoing costs give us a
bottom line--you cannot sell the product for less than it costs you to
produce and support it.  (Loss leader and tax shelters will be ignored
for the purposes of this discussion.)  :-)

So, now we get to Microsoft's motivation for bundling the network.  They
obviously feel that they can maximize their profits by bundling--
probably because they feel that they can charge a slightly higher price,
while still selling a lot of copies.  And, chances are good that the are
right.  And the fact that this leaves a gap in the market, which is
currently being filled by OS/2, is gravy to the OS/2 users.  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:56:16 -0400 
From: Jyri Virkki <jyri+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
	<1992Oct11.031526.29732@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Distribution: na


brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
> Are you just being an asshole, or did you misread my statement above?
> NT's support is better than that in 1.X.  OS/2 2.0 goes way overboard

Ok, I understand; you're stating NT's msdos support is inferior to
OS/2's.

> >Well there are x people out there running OS/2, and not a single
> >person running NT because it's still vaporware. Regardless of the
> >value of x, x>>0, thus the market for native OS/2 apps is tremendously
> >bigger than NT's.
> 
> Odd... I'm running NT.  The beta starts in a few days. This is
> vaporware?

Yes. Can I go tomorrow to the mall and buy NT from the software store?
The existence of a beta version means nothing to the end user. Either
it is available on the shelf, or it is not. Period.

> No OS/2 and NT are not doing the same things in terms of compatibility.
> NT's has simpler DOS compatibility and it also supports 1.X

Thanks for re-emphazising how NT is less capable than OS/2.

> IBM has already said publically that they will add support for
> future versions of Windows... are you saying they'll go back on
> their word?

Didn't know that. Seems like a smart move though. The transition
is just beginning, so it sounds like a good idea to allow users
the smoothest transition possible.

> Window 3.X and DOS 5.0 are not usable?

You must be joking? If you seriously think those products are viable
systems to work under, I'd have to seriously question the validity of
your opinions regarding NT. Msdos and windows are barely usable for
simple tasks; for serious work they are a very bad joke. I am not
willing to put up with anything less powerful than unix. Given that,
I'm sure you will agree msdos and windows are not even worth
mentioning. (If not, it means that your computing requirements are so
different from mine that the fact that you love NT probably means I
will hate it). Note I'm not saying NT is bad, it might be better than
OS/2, but until it comes out it's all hype.

--
Jyri J. Virkki | DoD#561 | jyri+@cmu.edu | Carnegie Mellon University | MSINI
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 07:30:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.012619.59727@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
...
>There are other programs available.  This was an example.  Please keep that in
>mind.  There are OS/2 based peer-to-peer networking packages expected to
>arrive shortly. ...
...
This is great news.. who's going to be making them... and what sort of
time frame are the due out?

>Stacy John Behrens

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 11 Oct 92 21:00:51 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

garyng@gnct.com (garyng) writes:
>sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

>> How about dumb terminals?  Granted they aren't a great way of doing things,
>> but they are necissary in some cases.  This appears to be a major flaw in NT'
>> support.

>I can't see why a telnetd(to server terminal on the lan) or a getty type 
>program(for dialin through com port) can't be written for NT. In fact, NT
>solve a lot of problems concerning security. Under DOS or OS2, if a dialin
>user gain access to COMMAND OR CMD, he can access everything. NT OTOH,
>give protection to files through the kernel.

This has been posted time and time again. If it is so trivial to write 
a telnetd for NT, then why the hell doesn't MS just *do* it? It seems 
bizarre that they keep saying that this can be easily done, that there
is obvious customer demand, and yet it is Not There. Why not?

I guess maybe it is just IBM that listens to customer requests. And 
often over toll-free lines. :-)

Tom