HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stevew@mksol.dseg.ti.com (steve wootton)
Subject: Re: is NT really NEW technology?
Keywords: C2 or not C2?
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 05:22:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.204102.17817@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

[Listing NT's advantages...]
>Over Unix:
>	Base package comes with C2 security.

Is this really true?  C2 on what specific hardware configuration?  To whom 
do I write to get the classification/validation report?

This sort of thing really is important to some of us, and I'm slightly
irked to see the meaning of a clearly-defined security validation level 
corrupted in this manner (if NT has actually not been validated).  You
can't just say "we're C2-secure" until someone from Mitre Corp. (or one of 
the other rating firms) hands you the report.

Either it actually has been rated, or it just has a collection of security 
features tacked on.  There is no middle ground on this issue.

-- 
Steve Wootton  --  stevew@mksol.dseg.ti.com
Hey, don't blame TI... they haven't told me what to say.
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: whose problem...
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:46:39 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <1992Aug14.174846.6143#sjsumcs.sjsu.edu>,
rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:


RW>That is not a cop out, it is reality.  That is true for *every*  OS and
RW>operating environment.  Who is responsible for the Orchid ProDesigner II
RW>drivers for Win 3.1?  Orchid.  Who is responsible for the Diamond Stealth
RW>drivers for SCO Unix?  Diamond.  Who is responsible for the Radius 24-bit
RW>color driver for Apple System 7?  Radius.

Who is responsible for the seamless Windows driver for XGA? IBM.
Who is responsible for the seamless Windows driver for 8514/A? IBM.
Who is responsible for the seamless Windows driver for Image Adapter?
IBM.

None of these drivers exist, either.  If IBM can't get its' OWN  drivers
out, why should we expect third party vendors to beat IBM to it?

RW>The responsibility of the OS vendor is to convince/pressure/cajole the
RW>peripheral makers into doing the drivers.  This is easiest *if* the
RW>OS vendor can show a large market share and provide good tools for the
RW>development of the drivers.  MS Win 3.1 had a lot of drivers at shipment
RW>because of perceived market share and despite the poor quality of MS
RW>provided tools.  OS/2 was lacking because the combination of skepticism
RW>over market share and the relatively poor quality of development tools.

I agree. And IBM hasn't been providing sufficient incentive (or DDK) to
vendors.

RW>Peripheral makers are getting stretched thin in the device driver market
RW>these days, with the spate of new and coming OS's.

True. Supporting Windows,  Desqview/X, NT, and  OS/2 all at  once is not
trivial.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  You are as agile as a pregnant yak
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bill@snoopy (Bill Poitras)
Subject: Re: It's OK for Windows to crash. It's not OK for OS/2 to crash.
Reply-To: bill@msi.com
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:33:37 GMT

Daniel P. B. Smith (dpbsmith@world.std.com) wrote:
: On the VAX, RS/1 and Word-11 and Oracle and my stuff could do stuff wrong
: and it still didn't crash the OS BECAUSE THE OS WAS RIGHT.  If OS/2 has
: ANY claim to being a "real OS," it just shouldn't be possible for an
: ORDINARY crufty ill-behaved application to crash it.

You mean to tell me VMS 1.0 NEVER CRASHED?  Unix SVR1 NEVER CRASHED?
You means to say all real OSes (OS/2 not included) NEVER CRASH?  Ok, OS/2
2.0 does crash from time to time, perhaps too often.  But for some people
it never crashes, even if the applications crash.  Don't tell OS/2
can't claim to be an real OS just because it crashes.

: Come on, you're telling me that OS/2 is doing network-y, server-y,
: multitaskery, zapping mission-critical electronic bucks over 
: enterprise-wide LANs, and someone crashes the OS and twenty thousand
: shares of stock get lost in the bit bucket ... and someone is going
: to pipe up and say "It's his fault! He should have known the third
: party application he was using was written in Digitalk Smalltalk!"

No.  But keep in mind that OS/2 is "doing network-y, server-y,
multitaskery, zapping mission-critical electronic bucks over
enterprise-wide LANs alot more than Windows 3.0 is.  OS/2 is used in
banks, airports, and also is used as the development platform for
Windows applications.  Wordperfect for Windows is one of them.  It was
developed under OS/2 1.3 because OS/2 1.3 was so much more stable than
Windows was.


--
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Molecular Simulations Inc.    | Tel (408)522-9229       |
| (bill)          | Sunnyvale, CA USA             |                         | 
|                 | FAX (408)732-0831             | bill@msi.com            |
+-----------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------+
From: ekl@fics.uucp
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows NT 'Alpha'
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:19:06 GMT
Organization: Kvam data as

In article <1992Aug17.232651.23471@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>By the above definitions, the Windows NT version available on CD-ROM
>is a 'Beta' not an 'Alpha'.  If the code causes a lot of errors (I'm
>not saying it does or dosen't), the definition is not affected.  I
>wonder just what the rationale for calling the Windows NT Beta an
>'Alpha' version is?  In any case I don't thing a (possibly) marketing
>issue should change the definition of established software engineering
>terms. 
>
>Please, let's call the Windows NT Beta what it is.
>
>--
>Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
>bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
>bdubbs@sadis01.sa.aflc.af.mil |  Scrupulous Lawyer

The main reason for not calling it beta, is that Microsoft themselves
do not use that term. They call it pre-beta (!), but they don't call
it alfa, though.

Eirik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: alcocer@parc.xerox.com (Dario Alcocer)
Subject: Will OS/2 2.0 support Windows 386Enh development?
Summary: Want to do develop Winapps under OS/2
Keywords: windows 386enh sdk
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:42:12 GMT

Netpeople:

Does anyone know if OS/2 2.0 will support, now or in the near
future, development of Windows apps that require 386 Enhanced
mode?  As I understand the problem, Windows 32-bit code cannot
run under OS/2 because the Windows kernel wasn't written to be a
DPMI client and tries to control protected mode directly.

On a related note, when the CSD comes out for Windows 3.1
suppoort, will 386 Enhanced mode be supported?  I've heard that
since Windows 3.1 was written to be a DPMI client, it can now be
hosted properly under OS/2 2.0.  BTW, the project I'm working on
requires 32-bit code (some heavy image-processing code that cannot
be reasonably ported to a 16-bit Windows DLL, which would make it
possible to run under Standard mode that OS/2 does support).  Also,
for market reasons, we cannot write exclusively for OS/2.

Followups to comp.os.os2.advocacy or e-mail to me will be
appreciated.  Thanks.

--
Dario Alcocer      | Internet: alcocer@adoc.xerox.com
Xerox Corporation  | Tel     : +1 415 813-6869
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:26:49 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Aug11.183237.20234@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil
Lafornara) writes:

>
>>>      This could be another shot in the foot.  At this moment,
>>>OS/2 supporters are slamming Windows NT for having those three features.
>>>"We don't need them," they say, and go about their business.
>>
>>Well, guess what?!  The persons who say, "I don't need them" probably
>>don't need them.  [*I* don't need these features]
>>
>>There are certain OS/2 persons who want/need one or more of these
>>features, while there are certain other persons that do not need
>>any of these features.
>>
>>An OS/2 person says, "I don't need them" -> Phil thinks: "No OS/2
>>user needs them.  This could be another shot in the foot".  :)
>
>      It's just typical of the standard OS/2 advocacy position -
>"Windows NT has portability, multi-user and multi-processor capability.
>I don't need these things.  Therefore, Windows NT is bad."  "OS/2 will
>have portability, multi-user and multi-processor capability.  I don't
>need these things, but someone else might.  Therefore, OS/2 is good."
>

Not true at all.  You are over simplifying the position of many OS/2
advocates.  First, what he, and many others of us think is something along the
lines of:

 Well, I don't need those features in NT for my PC, therefore why should I
 have to pay for features which I *can not* use.

Notice I said *can not* and not will not.  There is a big difference here.
multi-processing is useless for the vast majority of PCs, portability doesn't
mean much for your home PC, and the same goes for multi-user.  It isn't that
'NT is bad', because it isn't.  NT from what I can tell, is lacking (IMHO) one
important feature.  Modularity on a single machine.  Having all the stuff that
is offers in one package is great if you are going to use all or even most of
it.  That unfortunately is not going to be the case for most PC owners.  I
find it to be much more practical to be able to buy for example my LAN
software seperate from my regular PC software.  It also tends to give you more
choices in the system you use.  The way NT does things does not really offer
this.  If you go all out with MS's way of doing things, it's great, but many
of us aren't, can't, and/or won't.  Unfortunately, MS is marketing this as an
all or nothing venture and that doesn't leave many of us with the choices we
desire despite the system's flexibility.
My personal opinion is that I would rather use something like OS/2 + LanServer
because that doesn't force me to purchase the LAN software if I don't need it.
The functionality is not much less if at all, in most cases and it allows me
to pick other software if I so desire without having previously purchased any.

                                                  Stacy John Behrens
                                                  *===)-------------
From: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: cset/2 orders
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:45:52 EST
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <19929.2712.3464@dosgate>, "robert fielder" writes:

Bill>IBM  Canada  is  experiencing  a  "temporary  shortage"  of  CSET/2  and
Bill>Technical  Library.  Customers  are  told  that  a two to four week wait
Bill>should be expected, and that stock  will be ready for August 31st.  Mind
Bill>you, that August 31 date was quoted at the beginning of June.

RF>IBM Canada received about 200 copies of the Technical Library last
RF>week.  All were shipped out.

RF>They expected more on Friday (Aug 7) or Monday.  How many was unknown.

Oh? When I called in late July, I was given the answer I posted above.

RF>Maybe, since these are printed in the US, out problems are with where
RF>we are in the priority queue for IBM US and their printing house?

I  don't  want  to  know  about  it.  Actually,  the stuff is printed in
Mechanicsburg, last time I checked.

RF>Now, if Canadians take the lead in developing OS/2 2.0 apps, this
RF>might change......why not, we had the talent to write the compiler,
RF>didn't we?   <grin>

Now if only we can manage a C++ compiler...

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | I'm a brain in a vat. What about you?
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
  SLMR 2.1a  It is a tribute to mankind that we allow our teenagers to
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Subject: Re: TeX as Religion
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:15:41 GMT

ml3q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael H. Lambert) writes:

>Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 17-Aug-92 Re: Release dates
>( was Re:.. Richard Warner@sjsumcs.s (2094)

>   For Mathematical typesetting, Framemaker is current technology,
>   TeX is an archaic 'religion' whose mantra of 'only/best mathematical
>   typesetting system' no longer rings true.

>Hmm, Framemaker might be worth trying then...  Should I be able to find
>Framemaker source code on the same anonymous FTP sites as TeX?  What? 
>Framemaker source isn't freely available?  I wonder why TeX is more
>widely used in academia...

>Michael H. Lambert
>Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center

The cost factor is quite specious.  TeX costs money, the costs are
more hidden.  Manpower support costs for TeX have been high, so we
just dropped support - folks will have to support themselves if they
want to use it.  It is also a resource hog - the fonts take up a lot
of valuable disk space (those non-scalable raster fonts are murder).
And the printing of the large output files eats up a lot more network
bandwidth than do equivalent files from other programs that know how
to speak in more efficient terms (PostScript vector operators rather
than the rasterimage operator that runs rampant through the code
put out from the DVI->PostScript translators).

Framemaker is only $175 (educational price) for either the Mac or 
Windows.  That is not that much.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hasta la Vista, OS/2
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:54:45 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Aug19.170248.3627@desire.wright.edu> jstewart@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
> 	It should be able to correct for this.  Power failure should not cause
> disk loss in any decent OS.  (Novell Netware not withstanding :) )  I've shut
> down power to os/2(HPFS) in the middle of large thrash session quite a few
> times.  All I get is a longer boot time as it runs chkdsk.  And maybe 1 in 15
> times that chkdsk fails to recover all badly allocated space.  I notice this a
> a disparity between what chkdsk and dir show free.  Then all I gotta do is boot
> of floppy and run chkdsk and it's all back to normal.  From what I've seen
> heard OS/2 is much happier with HPFS.  The moral: give it what it wants :) :)
> :)
> 
> 					John Stewart

A power outage while in the moddle of updating a system file will result in
big trouble.....but that is true of any OS. I have found that at the worst -
so far - the active files at the time I kicked the plug out (big feet!) had
allocation errors and - since they were usually temporary or non-essential -
were easily recovered. I do see the potential for bigger problems, but that is
what we should have backups for - under any OS.
 
Steve


-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni)
Subject: Re: TeX an archaic religion?
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:20:57 GMT

In terms of normal typesetting, many commercial products like FrameMaker, Word,
and WordPerfect are just fine. But, from mathematical aesthetics, I don't
think any program is near the level of TeX. This is why many mathematicians,
physicists, and theoretical computer scientists prefer TeX. The TeX
engine uses many parameters to control the output of the manuscripts.
Many problems in implementing TeX turned out to be NP hard. This
explains why the hackers' products like (WP, FM, MSWord) seems to
output ugly documents when dealing with math formulae as well as 
some worst-case input patterns.

Here at Brown, the scene is quite clear. The system guys use Framemaker
because of large amount of text/graphics mixtures. I've never seen
any person in the theory group can afford not to use TeX. Many
Chemistry textbooks are much uglier these days because of the 
appearance of Macintosh. But, in Math and Computer science, the
printing quality of published books depend only on the 
resolution of the printer and the film.

I've tried to use FrameMaker to prepare my presentation slides but
gave up eventually. Estimating the spacing the selecting the font
(style/size) are just annoying under any WYSIWIG programs.

I don't think Knuth himself wanted TeX to be universally acceptable;
the "AMS copyright" just explains that. The current computing
power of normal workstations cannot handle WYSIWYG TeX, but I
expect a WYSIWYG product with TeX engine to appear within
years. 

I myself prefer TeX just because I love its output, even though it
somewhat hides the (ugly) contents of papers. If you like WYSIWYG
programs, just stick to them. I just don't feel comfortable with
their output documents. So, please do not use derogatory words
against the TeXers, they just want prettier documents and 
convenient math formula typing.



Wen-Chun Ni
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jeng@ipanema..bellcore.com (Fureching Jeng)
Subject: filename completion
Reply-To: jeng@ipanema.UUCP (Fureching Jeng)
Organization: Bellcore MRE
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 14:24:01 GMT

	I used to run a utility (TSR) program called cmdedit.exe on DOS
to have a filename completion function. I am just wondering there is such
a utility program existing for OS2 to have a filename completion function 
without using the 4OS2 package. Any hint will be appreciated.


Thanks,
FC
From: SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:44:46 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

In article <19920820.064647.623@almaden.ibm.com> AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg) writes:
>From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
>Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
>Date: 20 Aug 92 13:46:44 GMT


>It makes you wonder though why this SDK is so much cheaper than
>the OS/2 SDK's MS used to sell for over $1000.

Probably for the same reason that IBM used to sell its hardware for twice
as much as a decent clone - because people were willing to pay for it.
(for the humor impaired, please ignore the blantant jab at IBM)

Seriously though, its pretty obvious that when it was developing OS/2,
MS (and IBM) pretty much had a monopoly on the market.  There were no other
serious contenders for the OS title that MS-DOS held.  Now that IBM and MS
are locked in battle over the OS wars, they actually have to compete for
customers and developers.  Ain't competition great? (for consumers, that is)

>Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL

-Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)
From: thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:36:39 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Aug16.063621.3768@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> In article <1992Aug15.021516.28359@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In  <1992Aug12.220152.20876@microsoft.com>  petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>>
>>> Oh, wait, you wanted to use Just enough technology to make your point.
>>>
>>> Well, I'd like to use technology a little more advanced.  286 machines
>>> are getting quite cheap these days.  They run windows.
>>
>>Well, I like to use technology a little more advanced - all *mine*
>>run OS/2.  :-)
> 
> Mine run NT ;) 

You must have some pretty hellacious machines...

:-----------<)

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

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Charles A. Thompson               |  thompson@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu         |
|  University of Kansas              |  thompson@ukanvax.cc.ukans.edu        |
|  _Avid_ SkiBum                     |  OS/2 2.0 is for YOU!!!               |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Look for Recipe Pro(tm), an interactive recipe database, coming soon...   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 01:07:26 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
Reply-To: AV@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Uithoorn - Netherlands
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <SXMRP.24.0@orca.alaska.edu>

In <SXMRP.24.0@orca.alaska.edu> Michael R. Platzke writes:
>In article <19920820.064647.623@almaden.ibm.com> AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg) writes:
>>From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
>>Subject: Re: OS/2, DOS, NT (Speculative) -- My Opinions
>>Date: 20 Aug 92 13:46:44 GMT
>
>>It makes you wonder though why this SDK is so much cheaper than
>>the OS/2 SDK's MS used to sell for over $1000.
>
>Probably for the same reason that IBM used to sell its hardware for twice
>as much as a decent clone - because people were willing to pay for it.
>(for the humor impaired, please ignore the blantant jab at IBM)
>
>Seriously though, its pretty obvious that when it was developing OS/2,
>MS (and IBM) pretty much had a monopoly on the market.  There were no other
>serious contenders for the OS title that MS-DOS held.  Now that IBM and MS
>are locked in battle over the OS wars, they actually have to compete for
>customers and developers.  Ain't competition great? (for consumers, that is)
>
I am not going to start a debate on why and if clones are cheaper than
IBM PC's. (except of course that cloners don't have to do much research)

I would have understood 50% of the old OS/2 SDK price.
I agree that this is a much more competitive time.
But 7% of the OS/2 SDK price cannot be explained by that.
Or are you implying that NT is a clone of OS/2?

>-Michael R. Platzke (sxmrp@orca.alaska.edu)
>

Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: msm9891@cc.utah.edu (MICHAEL STEPHEN MERRELL)
Subject: OS/2 2.0 w/o WPS
Reply-To: msm9891@cc.utah.edu
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: 22 AUG 92 00:02:59    

> Well, I  can run  OS/2 without  Excel. Can  you tell  me how
> to run OS/2 without WPS?

	You can set something in the config file that allows you
to run OS/2 strictly from the CLI.  I'd tell you what the command is,
but I'm too lazy to sort through the clutter on my desk to find it.

		--Mike