HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program, NCSU, Raleigh
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:37:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct07.210012.4348@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.203618.4322@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:
>>Actually, to be precise, you could conceivably have one person with two xterms
>>with one of them logged-in as one user, and the other logged-in as a different
>>user.  Is that possible in the (eventually-to-be-)'shipping' NT?
>
>     Is that a useful scenario?  Not in any way that I can see.

Well, I have found need for it a time or two.  At any rate, I think it is a 
valid example, regardless of its usefullness.

>>'If you provided the login program....'  That is so typical of NT-advocates'
>>responses to missing features:  'If it's not there, write it yourself and let
>>Microsoft take credit for providing the feature.'  Come on!  Are we talking
>>about NT, or Linux, Minix, and BSD386?
>
>     The underlying architecture of Windows NT is such that it can
>allow concurrent multiple users.  It provides security between those
>processes.  The presence or absence of a login program doesn't change
>those facts.

It makes a difference to the end user.

>>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.
>
>     This is a straw-man.  We're not talking about BBSes.

I think it illustrates the point that what NT supports and what NT provides
'out-of-the-box' are two different things.

>>  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.
>
>     Would you care to provide a source for this little tidbit?

How about everyone on the net that I have heard speak of it (including C. Brian
Sturgill) as well as the people that I know who have NT?

John W. Linville




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
|  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1992 17:46:45 CET
From: FLATSCHER Rony <RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Gordon, some answers please ( was Re: MS's misconduct!
 <1992Sep30.201520.16617@microsoft.com>

Gordon:

A while ago (actually some months) you said that IBM-lawyers were threatening
you. John Soyring of IBM wrote you an open letter, that IBM did not find
anything on their files nor had they ever intended to threaten you.
He asked to name those lawyers who acted alledgedly on behalf of IBM. What was
your answer ? Were you lying at us ?


How come, that in your statements the IBM guys are the dumb, dull ones, and
Microsoft guys are the bright, shining guys ? Hey, those dull IBM guys have
been beating the shit out of those bright Microsoft guys (remember when
MS told people about OS/2 version 2.0 and see what it became now, a much wider,
more intelligent system) ? Cairo being slated for 1994, WPS being here in its
first incarnation already, the only thing you want to say is: WPS shitty ???
NT (promised by MS-employees on this net last quarter of 91 for 1half of 92,
then 2half 92, now your boss, Billy, tells us its 1st or 2nd quarter 93) is
still not here, despite of your feelings of MS-guys and gals being so bright ?

You want to tell us that MS were the guys who invented multitasking (or
multithreading for that matter, or the microkernel architecture for that
matter, or ...) ? That is the reason it exists in OS/2 ?

See, sometimes I find your posts interesting, because they reveal some tech-
nical thoughts. Most of the time, unfortunately, they are just jerking off in
the public, spreading FUD using half the truth. This certainly is way off your
capabilities. Use them for NT (or are you not allowed to work on it?). Make
it a good product, so IBM has to make 32bit OS/2 even better than it is, so you
need to make NT better, so IBM... you get the picture (e.g. no US$ 2,500 for an
SDK because of competition; oh, the bright and nice guys at Microsoft first
cut off the pockets of their developers and then, just making up a new mind,
had them left in the rain, the developer's $$$ went down the sink for them; see
even in that situation IBM stood by OS/2 and helped them out, **not** you or
anyone else at Microsoft). If NT fails, I wonder what happens to all those
NT-developers which are so highly motivated by Microsoft - probably the same as
what had happened to those MS-OS/2-developers - they just have to bite the
dust.

Still compete with IBM. That way, I as a customer profit, not necessarily you,
granted. But then again, I would not want those things happening to me what
happened to ISV with MS-OS/2.

---rony
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 12 Oct 92 08:47:58 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <7538@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct09.174713.178@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
|> >      Still a valid interpretation.  OS/2 2.0, however, has shown
|> >that competitive pricing can really help to sell an OS - I expect
|> >Microsoft will learn something from that.
|> 
|> If it has, then why did it say "<$500"?

More fuel to the fire from the UK "Windows Magazine" for November (!!) quoting
Bill Gates:

"So if you get [a machine with Windows pre-installed] and you want to move up
to NT, you just buy an upgrade kit. We haven't picked exact numbers, but it's
very safe to say less than $300 list price as an upgrade."

"There's a part of the market that for $49 says what should I get today -
should I get a shoot-'em-up game, or a 60Mb operating system and just play
around with it. Just the number of blank disks alone are quite a bargin.
We'll not be using that type of pricing."

It sounds to me like the upgrade will be in the $100-$150 range.

BTW, it is described as a "audience" with Bill Gates, as if he was royalty or
something. YUK!. I also found his smear against OS/2 as something people buy
to "just play around with" to be petty and inaccurate.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 08 Oct 92 18:45:54 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct8.15852.11153@ms.uky.edu> sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.203618.4322@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct6.131605.15955@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Actually, to be precise, you could conceivably have one person with two xterms
>>>with one of them logged-in as one user, and the other logged-in as a different
>>>user.  Is that possible in the (eventually-to-be-)'shipping' NT?
>
>
>>     Is that a useful scenario?  Not in any way that I can see.
>
>Ok, Phil.  Have you ever administered Unix?

     No, I haven't.


>  It is EXTREMELY useful to have
>multiple users logged into separate xterms.  I can be logged into my account
>in one (actually, several) windows, root in another, and operator in another.
>All doing their little tasks, with their appropriate privileges.

     Can each of these xterms open new windows?  Can they obscure
windows owned by another user?  Can they kill windows opened by
another user?  If so, how can you claim to have any kind of security
if these things are allowed?


>Examples:
>
>1.  Root doing software installation/maintenance
>2.  Operator doing file restorations
>3.  Me handling help requests
>
>...all at the same time.  You seem to be saying NT can't do this at the
>console, and that you don't see a need for it?  

      I believe that in the current architecture, Windows NT requires
the console to be owned by a single user ID.  Whether or not there
will be provisions to run sub-processes under another user ID I do
not know.
     BTW - if you are logged in as root, why do you need to be logged
in as anyone else?

					-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.
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:19:34 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1992Oct9.003741.15136@ncsu.edu>, linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:
|> I think it illustrates the point that what NT supports and what NT provides
|> 'out-of-the-box' are two different things.

I agree! Base-level NT *supports* full multi-user capabilities, unlike base
level OS/2. (Just trying to keep some OS/2 input in this thread:-)

NT does not *provide* the Unix-style mechanisms for accessing these
capabilities. They will be available from third parties.

Personally, I would rather see telnetd, rshd, ftpd etc. provided as part of
the base package.

|> >>NT, the 'server OS,' only supports TCP/IP client stuff.
...............................^^^^^^^^
|> >
|> >     Would you care to provide a source for this little tidbit?
|> 
|> How about everyone on the net that I have heard speak of it (including C. Brian
|> Sturgill) as well as the people that I know who have NT?

You just fell into your own trap! NT *supports* TCP/IP server stuff but does
not, at present, provide it.


[ It is interesting to note that some of the people who are arguing that NT
shold provide rlogin etc. are also those who are arguing against having TCP/IP
in the base package.  You can't have it both ways! ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
In-reply-to: spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu's message of Tue, 13 Oct 92 10:41:19 EDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
	<7561@lib.tmc.edu> <y86-=4=@engin.umich.edu>
Distribution: world 
Date: 13 Oct 92 09:10:46

hIn article <y86-=4=@engin.umich.edu> spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II) writes:
> In article <7561@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.212507.28868@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>     The "hidden reason" crowd are those who actually believe in
>>>some Microsoft/Ziff-Davis conspiracy to surpress Zachmann and his
>>>ideas.
>>
>>Hardly. Microsoft and Ziff-Davis' reasons are transparent: MS wants to silence
>>a respected critic, and ZD wants to keep getting MS ad dollars.
>
> I must disagree with the implication that ZD simply wants to "keep getting
> MS ad dollars."  While the advertising from Microsoft *is* considerable, it
> is certainly nothing that cannot be replaced by someone else should Microsoft
> pull its advertising.

Advertising isn't a resource that is in such high demand that the loss of
a major advertiser is simply replaced from an infinite supply of other ads.
Ad space is like Dorritos -- eat all you want, we'll make more...

MS ad dollars lost are not replaced, unless it is by MS competitors who
have a policy to not advertise in publications where MS ads appear (not
very likely).
--
Steve Jacobs  ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)
"Be afraid.  Be very afraid.  I have K-10 offsuit...."
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
    <1992Oct07.210012.4348@microsoft.com> <1992Oct8.15852.11153@ms.uky.edu> 
    <1992Oct08.184554.29579@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:22:51 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

In response to my posting (beginning with ">>":
>>
>>Ok, Phil.  Have you ever administered Unix?

>     No, I haven't.


>>  It is EXTREMELY useful to have
>>multiple users logged into separate xterms.  I can be logged into my account
>>in one (actually, several) windows, root in another, and operator in another.
>>All doing their little tasks, with their appropriate privileges.

>     Can each of these xterms open new windows?  Can they obscure
>windows owned by another user?  Can they kill windows opened by
>another user?  If so, how can you claim to have any kind of security
>if these things are allowed?

Yes, each of these xterms can open new windows on my X-terminal (or
workstation.)  You control security on a per-machine basis; If I set
"xhost + somemachine", then anyone on somemachine can open an xterm on
my console (ie, X-terminal or workstation.)  But thats not insecure for me;
I'm the one at the console, with control over their session.

At any rate, in my example I really meant being logged into separate userid's
that I myself maintain, so that has no effect on security.


>>Examples:
>>
>>1.  Root doing software installation/maintenance
>>2.  Operator doing file restorations
>>3.  Me handling help requests
>>
>>...all at the same time.  You seem to be saying NT can't do this at the
>>console, and that you don't see a need for it?  

>      I believe that in the current architecture, Windows NT requires
>the console to be owned by a single user ID.  Whether or not there
>will be provisions to run sub-processes under another user ID I do
>not know.
>     BTW - if you are logged in as root, why do you need to be logged
>in as anyone else?

Because we maintain a large heterogenous network of Unix based machines.
We don't want root running around doing things it doesn't need to be
doing.  For instance, backups.  If we let root do backups on machine X to
a remote machine Y, then machine Y must have X listed in its root .rhosts
file.  This is unacceptable.  In our system, we let operator do backups to
remote hosts.  This is only one example.

When it becomes neccessary to be root for something, we login to the
machine in question under our own userid and then "su" to root.  This
keeps things accountable.


>					-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.



-- 
--Mike Mills              E-Mail:  sam@ms.uky.edu, {rutgers, uunet}!ukma!sam
--UK Math Sciences Dept.                  mike@ukpr.uky.edu    
--(606) 257-1429 (work) 263-0721 (home)
From: x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Video games and NT
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:47:23 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <719208116.F00001@blkcat.UUCP>, Timur.Tabi@f347.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Timur Tabi) writes:
> TG>I actually prefer strategy/fantasy games, and I long for one which takes
> TG>advantage of my 1280x1024 monitor. The market is there but many of the best
> TG>game designers have not caught up with it yet. By the end of next year I
> TG>expect to see a significant percentage of such games released for Windows.
> TG>Maybe by the end 1994 they will come out for windows first!
> 
> TG>[No, sorry, I don't see many of them coming out in OS/2-specific versions]
> 
> Apparently, you don't read "OS/2 Monthly".  Check out my column.  I've got a
> game like that in the works, but it still has a ways to go.
> ___
>  * MR/2 1.31 NR * Columnist for "OS/2 Monthly"


	The day that most new video games come out for the windows
interface or PM is the day that I buy an Amiga 4000.  
	Windows and PM might be nice for something like SimCity but
the thought of playing Wing Commander 4 on OS/2 PM or Windows NT sends
shivers up my spine. 


>
From: amitp@ruf.rice.edu (Amit J Patel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: OS/2 Crashed!
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:25:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: rice.Bw2DE2.GLq
Reply-To: amitp@owlnet.rice.edu
Organization: Rice University

I'm totally amazed!

OS/2 crashed on me a few days ago.  I was printing something and it
just stopped; the mouse moved, but Ctrl-Alt-Del didn't work!  I took
off the new Epson printer driver from watson (?), and everything is
back to normal [*] now.

I have been running OS/2 for 7 weeks now, and there hadn't been any
crashes...  (it's a big change from the MS-DOS 5.0 days where I had a
crash every few hours [not windows; just plain DOS])

Well, now I understand why people don't like it when OS/2 crashes... I
didn't lose any work, but the chkdsk "fixing file <blah>" stuff scared
me.  :)


		Amit




[*] -> NO crashes.
                 ^
              Period
From: mhuth@byron.u.washington.edu (Mark Huth)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. NT
Keywords: OS/2, NT, Windows
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:55:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct11.195552.18438
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1b89omINN81c@gap.caltech.edu> kasturi@nntp-server.caltech.edu.ogi.edu writes:
>I challenge the Windows NT advocates out there to tell me why I should  
>switch from OS/2 2.0 to Windows NT.
>
>Tejaswi Kasturi
>kasturi@cco.caltech.edu
Do what many of us are doing.  Run OS/2 now, evaluate NT as it progresses and 
then make an informed decision.  I don't see the point of trying to analyze
your situation and tell you which os you should run.  Send me cash (grin) and
I'll be happy to do a detailed system analysis.  Hey, this isn't a religous war
P   


we're discussing operating systems for computers here! 

-- 
Mark Huth                         * Is it too wild to want to get into 
Mhuth@u.washington.edu            * Space someday?
Compuserve 70346,563              *
From: si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:36:59 MET
Organization: Norwegian School of Economics

In article <1992Oct13.011342.22239@midway.uchicago.edu>, soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:
> In article <XT3JsB3w165w@gnct.com> garyng@gnct.com (garyng) writes:
>>soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) 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... 

Besides - how long did it take from the launch of Windows 3.0 until
there were 3.0 apps around? Long!

Terje Bergesen  SI0_TB90020@debet.nhh.no

From: Mike.Hobbs@f115.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Mike Hobbs)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: WIN-OS/2 3.1 BETA BENCHMA
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 17:53:00 -0600

At 19:12, Thompson emerged from Holodeck 1 and shouted out something about
WIN-OS:

>Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
>
>Hello netters,
>
>Here are the Windows 3.1 and the beta Win-OS/2 3.1 benchmarks.
>These figures were generated by PC Magazine's Windows benchmarks
>program, version 2.5.  Both figures were generated on the same
>machine using dual boot.
>
>System:
>486dx-33
>8 megs of RAM
>
>Microsoft Windows 3.1 in 640x480 standard VGA mode using the
>standard VGA driver included with the package:
>
>3,739,643 WinMarks
>
>IBM _beta_ Win-OS/2 3.1 in 640x480 standard VGA mode using the
>standard VGA driver included with the package:
>
>3,516,111 WinMarks
>
>So, the Win-OS/2 3.1 beta is 6% slower than Windows 3.1.
>Pretty impressive for a beta...maybe the released version
>will actually improve on Windows 3.1 performance.
>

A couple of questions,

1) Was Win-OS/2 3.1 running full screen or as a window?

2) Was Windows 3.1 running standard or enhanced mode?

Thanks.

            Mike Hobbs

___
 * MR/2 1.3 NR * For a good time, call 1-800-3IBMOS2


 * Origin: (1:282/115)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rvinluan@cs.cornell.edu (Rolando Vinluan)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:06:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.120923.5791@ais.com>, bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright) writes:
|> In article <hatton.718837251@cgl.ucsf.edu>, hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:

|> > 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?
|> 
|> This is a very good question.  This shouldn't be very much trouble
|> compared to everything else they're doing with the system, and given
|> the other things they're talking about putting into it (like TCP/IP).
|> 
|> I don't have any plausible ideas about why they haven't done it.  Of
|> course, it's still possible that they _will_ do it before the system
|> ships, but it is rather odd that they seem to be so reluctant to even
|> consider it.  The whole affair does seem rather bizarre, as you say.
|> 
|> Bruce C. Wright


	Maybe for the NT group, it's a *religious* thing. They're trying
to promote a (slightly) newer way of doing things, so why include something
that encourages the *old* way of doing things in the base package?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy