From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:22:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.073424.2387@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.063620.16497@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.131605.15955@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct6.123731.25876@ms.uky.edu> sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills) writes:
>>>>Thanks to everyone who explained to me NT's multiuser capabilities.  I agree
>>>>that being able to provide security for multiple people is MUCH different
>>>>than allowing those people to be using the machine at the same time.
>>>>
>>>>Thank you very much Paul and Brian for distorting the facts.  Yet another
>>>>reason not to buy Microsoft products.
>>>
>>>Where did I distort the facts... and how am I related to Microsoft?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>It seems rather silly that NT supports symmetrical multiprocessing, and gives
>>>>that power to all of one user at a time.
>>>Where did you get this information from?  It's true the graphics
>>>system allows only one user at the console at a time.
>>>But this is not different even from X.
>>
>>
>>Excuse me but you can rlogin as many users as you so desire from as many
>>windows as you desire under X-Windows.  
>>
>>Under SCO Unix you can have up to 12 virtual ternminals
>> ( Even character based ) from the console each of 
>>which is a seperate login to the machine and can be logged in as i
>>different users.
>>
>> Brian have you used UNIX ????
>
>You can do this under NT too.  NT's Windowing System, just as
>under X, causes the display hardware it attaches to, to belong
>to a single user during the duration of that login session.
>I.E. when user joe starts X, then joe owns that X session.
>NT is better than many X's in that when joe logs in, only joe
>and those users joe allows can write on joes screen, create
>windows, etc.

Brian please note the words in the above DIFFERENT LOGIN ID's 
so how can you say "you can do this on NT too" and then go on
and talk about only one Login ID.



>
>>
>>>
>>>You can have background tasks executing as other users... and if you
>>>provided the login program... people logged in via serial ports.
>>
>>This doesn't get away from the fact that NT does not provide concurrent     
>>multi user out of the box. Also there are no currently available tools to
>> do this. 
>
>NT does provide the actual program equivalent of /bin/login, but its
>kernel does provide more sophisticated equivalents of user id, group id,
>setuid(), getuid(), etc.  The equivalent /bin/login program
>can be written in a similar number of lines of code.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Can be written means that it is bnot there when shipped. 

>
>>
>>The facts you tout about multi user for NT WRT remote logins are just as valid
>>for OS/2 and in fact OS/2 is one better in that they are here NOW. (OS2toYOU) 
>
>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.
>
>>
>>Brian lets have less of the bullshit and politicing and more real fact.
>
>Please know what you're talking about before jumping all over me.

Where was I wrong in what I said you as usual just twisted the answers.
Therefore I DID no what I was talking about before "jumping all over you"
i

Martin Smith
msmith@netcom.com



>
>>
>>Martin Smith
>>msmith@netcom.com
>
>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! :-))