HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 11 Oct 92 03:19:12 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.130704.8413@hellgate.utah.edu>, 
>brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes...
>>IBM no longer sells OS/2 for $49.  I believe the current upgrade
>>price is $79, and even that price applies only to Windows users.

That should be "just $79" since it includes Os/2, Windows, and DOS.

>Well, technically Windows licensees.  You don't have to _use_ Windows, you 
>just need the manual to get the lower price (and be willing to part with 
>the title page).

Agreed. Actually, I didn't "part with it" so much as I terminated it
with extreme prejudice. IBM seems to have accepted the pieces. :-)

Tom
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: Password protected folders (Was: Re: Lost a possible NT person)
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:51:39 GMT

In  <1992Oct08.000541.5386@watson.ibm.com>  cnadler@vnet.ibm.com (Cliff Nadler) writes:
>
> You seem to miss the point. It is a SHELL, not a security feature of the disk.
> It is there mostly to keep a common environment for all users, yet only let
> users be able to use what they need. Rather useful in a large LAN environment
> when you have your sysadmins doing some trouble-shooting.
>

I am sysadmin of a PC network with 100+ PCs, I really can't imagine any
use of a restricted shell. If I want Joe User only to use programs he
needs, he has access only to the files he needs.

Christoph
--
Internet: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de
Bitnet  : HAMPE2 AT DMRHRZ11
Fido    : 2:243/660
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 10 Oct 92 03:55:21 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct9.193428.29875@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
> In <1992Oct08.092757.16811@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> 
> >> 
> >> Networking packages aren't like stripped-down versions of common software.
> >> Including full-function TCP/IP networking in NT is like including
> >> Weird...er...Word for Windows: nobody in their right mind would try to
> >> compete. Why should FTP Software develop an NT version of PC/TCP, when you're
> >> throwing in an equivalent package with the OS (and cranking up the price to
> >> cover it)?
> 
> >Why should DR develop another DOS when MS DOS covers that base?
> 
> Not quite the same thing, Pete.  What he's talking about is someone
> writing something that you would need NT to run, when NT already
> includes a full-blown version of that functionality.  Your example is
> more along the lines of someone producing a better NT (including
> networking, plus a bunch of things that NT won't do).  His point is
> valid.  How many copies of a package to do X am I likely to be able to
> sell if the ability to do X is already built into the thing my package
> requires in order to run?

Oh, sorry, bad example I guess, didn't get the point across.

How about "Why should Norton develop Norton Desktop".

Added functionality you say?

Bingo, I say.
Now apply that argument to basic network stuff.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:44:00 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct5.122637.11029@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.161852.22158@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.094937.25572@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>>
>>>It does not include all of the things that most developers will not
>>>need, such as management tools, Full Win/Dos compatability, Full networking,
>>>etc.
>>
>>Developers don't need full networking?  There won't be many networking
>>apps out of that's MS's attitude!  If MS wants to push networking on
>>the population, they're going to need good ISV support for their
>>network facilities, and withholding them from the SDK isn't going to
>>help.
>
>Think!  What he means is that LAN Manager for NT is not included.
>TCP/IP and the peer-to-peer stuff, RPC, etc are all there.

LAN Manager wasn't ever supposed to be included with NT, right?
Pete's statement implies that these features will be in NT's GA
release.  I think he knows this as much as you (and I) do.

>>No, I think they were omitted from the pre-release kit because they
>>weren't ready yet.
>
>You wish.

I find it interesting that you know what Pete meant.

Anyhow, if these modules (management tools, Full Win/DOS compatability
and Full networking) were ready, it makes no sense to omit them.
Those buying the CD will get a free upgrade to the released product,
anyway, right?  So it makes no sense to withhold completed code from
them.

Why would a company make a conscious decision to withhold a working
piece of the system from developers, who may want to use these pieces.
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 18:04:06 GMT

amitp@owlnet.rice.edu writes:
> I'm no unix administrator, but I use this a lot, too!  I have one
> account for myself, and there's one class account for the class I am a
> teaching assistant for.  If I am grading work or stuff like that, I
> use the class account; if I am doing personal stuff, I use my own account.

This is indeed useful on Unix, but less so on some other systems (such as
NT and -- gasp -- VMS).  Why?  Unix has a rather simplistic view of autho-
rizations, with each file having a userid and group id associated with it,
and separate read-write-execute permission sets for owner, group and others.
(Yes, some Unix systems have enhanced this.) With a more flexible scheme,
such as that employed in NT, you can assign specific privileges to specific
users and groups, giving you WAY more flexibility.

Without that flexibility, often the easiest way to handle the permissions
requirements is to create multiple userids for one person's different needs
(such as Amit's case above).  I have always found this to be bit of a hack,
and I'd find much less need for it with more flexible access control lists.

This is not to say that I wouldn't like to be able to have multiple consoles
on NT with different security attributes, but that there's less need for it
on NT than on Unix.

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: reisner@prism.cs.orst.edu (Ron Reisner)
Subject: Re: Review: OS/2 2.1 BETA.
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept
Distribution: orst
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 17:17:52 GMT

In <1992Sep28.175823.29169@colorado.edu> kurt@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Kurt Olender) writes:

>C
>Sender: 
>Followup-To: 
>Distribution: 
>Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
>Keywords: 

>I would like to verify a problem I am having with the new
>OS/2 beta.  I was running Word for Win 2.0 and noticed that
>selection boxes didn't work!?  I am referring to the selection
>boxes with the down arrow that allow one to select a new font
>or style sheet, etc. and are in the tool bar at the top of the
>screen.

>This seemed weird, so also tried Excel 4.0 and had the same problem
>but not with every one.  Only one of the selection boxes in Excel
>wouldn't work (trying to change the font color, I believe).

>Anyway, anyone else notice this or possible verify before I send
>a message to IBM.

>Thanks.

>Greg

>P.S. this was in a Win 3.1 session.


I'm having the same type of problem with Ami Pro 3.0 in Win 3.1 seamless.  
To be more precise, the icon, fonts, .... pop-up menus at the bottom of the
screen come up and then disappear.  The tech support people at Lotus were
also having the problem.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:10:36 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct13.165948.25674@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Oct12.213050.29012@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>
>>>  What reason does Zachmann have for making
>>>MS look bad?  Certainly not financial gain.
>
>>     Actually, he stands to make quite a bit of money if OS/2 succeeds
>>the way he has been predicting.
>
>This is the second one of your postings where you seem to be saying
>this, Phil.  It frankly simply does not wash.  Personally, I started
>ignoring Zachman a long time ago, when he was continually telling us
>about how OS/2 was going to take over the world, etc.  I simply didn't
>think he was objective enough about things to warrant listening to.
>Of course, that was back in the days when Microsoft was involved in
>it, too.  If he had 'something to gain' by being right, why wait until
>now to do something?

     Maybe his popularity was slipping?


>Also, just how do you expect him to "make quite a bit of money if OS/2
>succeeds"?  Just because he was right ONCE, AFTER SEVERAL YEARS?

     If he was right on a significant long shot, and right in a big
way, his reputation would gain for it.  More jobs.  Maybe an editor
spot at "Microsoft Bashing Monthly".  :-)

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 21:08:37 GMT

In article <d9mikael.718487284@dtek.chalmers.se> d9mikael@dtek.chalmers.se (Mikael Wahlgren) writes:
>brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>>OS/2 does NOT have the same feature, even with OS2toYOU.  OS2toYOU only
>>provides passworded logins.  Once the user is given a shell they
>>have full privileges to all the system.  OS/2 has no concept of user id.
>>NT has full fledged separate users id's with corresponding
>>levels of privilege.
>
>I don't think your knowledge about OS2toYOU is as complete as mine...:-)
>Have you ever heard of HPFS386?  No, I thought so.

Well you thought wrong.  I have heard of HPFS386, I also know that it
is not a part of the cheap OS/2 2.0 product, but rather a part of the rather
expensive LAN Server product.

>
>Mikael Wahlgren

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! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:05:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Oct13.170545.26007
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Oct12.214013.29621@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>
>>	The real question is: If NT didn't exist, would MS be offering OS/2
>>apps ?

>     Hard to say.  We aren't producing Amiga apps either.

I don't think it would be THAT hard to say, Phil.  After all, you USED
to produce OS/2 apps.  Did you ever produce Amiga apps?

>>	I wonder if MS people are supporting Bush -- Clinton might well
>>reverse the Reagan era stance and antitrust laws might actually become
>>effective again.

>     It'll be a cold day in hell the day I vote for George Bush.

Good Lord, Phil and I AGREE about something!  Does this mean that one
of us needs to go rethink our position?  :-)


-- 
"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.
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling and the price of NT
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:13:39 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <13OCT92.14357384.0207@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA>, Hugh Whalen <HWHA@UNB.CA> writes:
> Those challenging Pete are arguing that including networking will
> increase the cost of NT because we must now consider the cost of
> developingnetworking in the pricing decision. As Fred McCall says:
> 
>> Because you have increased your value of X above (that floor price
>> below which there is no profit in selling the thing) because now
>> some proportion of the network stuff costs must be included in X.
> 
> Good point but  *wrong*.
> 
> The development costs of the product are IRRELEVANT in the pricing
> decision. Yes I said irrelevant and I meant it. These development
> costs are known as sunk costs. You have spent the money, you cannot
> unspend it and if you consider the sunk costs you may make the
> incorrect decision.  [...]

You're right, of course.  But when you're thinking of developing a
software product, you have to have some kind of idea what you can sell
it for, how many copies you might be able to sell, and how much it
will cost to develop, market, produce, and distribute it.  At that
point you have no sunk costs (or at least very little ... planning
discussions and maybe a simple demonstration project or two).  I've
been assuming that MS has been planning on including networking
support for quite some time (I don't think I've heard very many
discussions of NT without the word `networking' being mentioned in 
practically the same breath), possibly from the beginning.

At any rate, in these estimations that you make when you are first
planning a product, it's my contention that in most cases, you'll
plan that development costs _per se_ are going to be small relative
to those other costs, and hence to the price level you plan to sell
it at.  Or that's the way you'll plan if you expect to turn a profit
on your enterprise.  :-)

Of course, things may happen to upset your plan ... like increased
competition that changes the elasticity of the market, so that you
can't get as high a price as you initially planned -- then you may
get situations such as the one you outlined where you could never
recover your sunk costs but were still better off marketing the
product because you could still sell it above your marketing and
production costs.

In fact this situation may well have happened to both IBM and MS :-).

Bruce C. Wright
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT delivery date
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:55:27 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct8.022211.20157@muddcs.claremont.edu>, tlilley@jarthur.claremo
nt.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.003635.16532@leland.Stanford.EDU> yiupun@leland.Stanford.E
DU (Yiupun Michael Kwong) writes:
>>I read in Computer Shopper that at a press conference, Microsoft says that
>>they are going to deliver NT by year's end afterall.
>>
>>Does anyone know whether this is true?  And is the code going to be reasonably
>>bug free?
>>
>>If the answer is positive to the above two questions, OS/2 is in *deep*
>>trouble.
>
>One thing to say: Pffffffft.  I'll let you wonder whether that was for
>NT being out by year's end, whether the code will be bug free, or whether
>OS/2 is in deep trouble.  I'm sure you'll be doing that anyway.

How mature.  Really makes OS/2 advocates look like a classy bunch.  I
apologize for that response as it was uncalled for.  As for the meat of the
post, this is the way I see it.  NT will most likely not ship until towards
the middle of next year (march through about july depending on delays).  As
for it being bug free?  That is almost impossible to say and depends very much
on what you regard as a bug.  Certain aspects of it I expect to be nearly bug
free, (some already are) others I expect to be fairly riddled with them.  I do
expect the former to exceed the latter, but by how much I cannot say.

>
>Ted
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: goyal@utdallas.edu (Mohit K. Goyal)
Subject: When is the next Comdex?!?!
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:10:08 GMT

Hello.  Will someone please tell me when the next Comdex is, and
what its name is. (Fall Comdex?!?)

Thanks.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II)
Subject: Re: Unprofessional Posts from Brian S.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 10:15:05 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan, Mathematics Department, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world 

In article <1992Oct13.051516.5047@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <px6-Xy#@engin.umich.edu> spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.230138.274@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>I went back and checked the last 1,000 posts to c.o.o.a, your assertions
>>>in this tirade are largely unfounded.  Via e-mail, I'm sending you
>>>a copy of all my posts in this last 1,000 messages.
>>
>>No offense to anybody, but if *anybody* tried to pull this kind of stunt on
>>me, I would send an immediate complaint to the system and network admini-
>>strators that are responsible for the network connections of
>>jaguar.cs.utah.edu.
>
>I only posted 56 of the 1,000 messages... i.e. I sent him the text
>of 56 messages... it's not a small file... but it's not that bad either..
>What's your problem with it?

I have no problem with it, because I am not the one getting the messages.

If I *were* getting those messages, I would complain to your administrators.

>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! :-))


-- 
D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu
Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:32:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Oct14.183226.26511
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Oct13.183619.24862@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Oct12.180616.23066@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Oct09.182514.931@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct8.174049.15330@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>
>>>>So does MS-DOS and my 'Vette, but they have very little to DO with
>>>>them.  Certainly neither of them is a concurrent multi-user system,
>>>>and it is my understanding (because you have to be seated at the
>>>>console to use it) that Windows/NT is not one, either.
>>>>
>>
>>>      Sigh.  Fred, you haven't been reading _anything_.  Please
>>>state a source for your contention that a user has to be seated
>>>at the console to use Windows NT.
>>
>>	Sigh.  Phil, you haven't been writing _anything_.  Please
>>explain just what you've all been talking about (one user at a time at
>>the console on NT).

>     The number of users at the console has _nothing_ whatsoever to
>do with an OS being multiuser.  You are well aware of this, and I'm
>not sure why you keep trying to twist the definition.

The number of users at the console, when the console is the only way
to 'log in', has _everything_ whatsoever to do with an OS being
multiuser.  You are (or ought to be) well aware of this, and I'm not
sure why you keep trying to twist the definition (other than so you
can claim NT is 'multi-user' and OS/2 isn't.  NYA!).

-- 
"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: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: Re: Don't Compare with Amiga!
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:41:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.114324.5734@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>	OS's like OS/2 and NT require more memory than the Amiga becase
>they simply do a lot more.  


For one thing, OS/2 and Windows provide an "abstraction" of the
hardware.  Amiga programs have an intimate knowledge of the hardware,
whereas Windows and OS/2 programs talk to a GDI.  The abstraction
permits enhanced graphics hardware to added to PCs without making the
applications obsolete.

On the other hand, the overhead imposed by this abstraction means that
(as I just read in a post a few messages ago) Windows is unable to
support effective arcade-style games, or most any sort of complex
animatio; animation is something the Amiga excels at, and it does so
while multi-tasking.

>	To use the Amiga accurately, one must use the Amiga 4000 and
>Workbench 3.0 as its comparison.  From what I hear (and this is not
>necesarily true since I have not personally READ it) it does offer
>protection.  It is supposed tto also require over 2 megs of ram (I heard
>3).  This is for an OS that only runs Amiga apps.

The AmigaOS, even in it's 3.0 incarnation, may still be run in only 1
meg of memory, and still does not offer any kind of protection.
AmigaOS only provides what is necessary to allow applications to share
system resources, it does not protect them from each other.  Windows
under DOS is similar in this regard.  Unlike Windows, AmigaDOS will
never be able to offer protection, even in later releases, without
breaking a large number of applications, because the basis for Amiga
inter-application communications is unrestricted access to each
others' memory spaces.
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...