HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gkm@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (gary.k.mc nees)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:07:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <eagle.718459996@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:
>brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>You can do this under NT too.  NT's Windowing System, just as
>>under X, causes the display hardware it attaches to, to belong

>In our X labs out here, we like to play with the people we can convince
>to type "xhost +" or "xhost +{computername}" because when someone types
>that, anyone (or anyone on {computername}) can create a window on Joe's
>screen.  People often wonder where those seventeen clocks came from. :)
>
>Daniel
>--
>Daniel L'Hommedieu / Junior, CSC Depatment, NCSU / eagle@catt.ncsu.edu
>From: Rec.humor.funny:				   "Ich bin ein Adler"
>      My unique solution to two of the world's problems:
>      "Feed the Homeless to the Hungry"

With IBM TCP/IP 1.2.1 the xhost command doesn't work. Even if one
types xhost -, anyone can still create as many windows as on a person's
terminal as desired.

Gary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:06:26 GMT

In <1992Oct7.194036.14489@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:

>In  <1992Oct7.001053.29352@netcom.com>  xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>> Personally, I'm waiting breathlessly for LANtastic for OS/2.  I suspect
>> that this will be out *long* before LANtastic for NT (hmm, will there
>> *ever* be such a product?  I seriously doubt it.)

>You can stop doubting it. NT has far superior Networking-Software built
>in. You can compare LAN-MANAGER Networking to Novell, but what do you need
>LANtatstic for, if you have LM Networking built into NT.

Right, so I'll just install NT on all these 286 machines we have in the
office.  Oh, what's that you say?  NT doesn't run on a 286?  Gee, I
guess it's *definitely* not going to be able to talk to the XT's that
are currently running LANtastic?

Oh, I should upgrade all the systems in the office?  Fine, mail me a
check, and I'll be happy to.  :-)

Oh, I should run Windows and Windows for Workgroups?  Would you like to
buy me a bunch of Winapps?   We have *exactly* zero Winapps in the
office.  Would you like to pay for the new software and training?  Fine,
mail me a huge check.  Then I'll be willing to consider using NT and
replacing out existing network.  Ah, but then, there's all of our
customers who are currently using LANtastic.  Gee, guess you'd better
make that a HUMONGOUS check you send me.  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph Malloy)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:32:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.040841.8199@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>     Why is Zachmann more credible?  He clearly has an agenda.  So do
>>his editors.
>
>Zachmann's gain is much smaller than MS's or ZD's loss every time he
>writes in favor of os/2.  This is a very familiar situation: if one
>has to choose a side, one has to choose with less self-interest.
>I thought it's a common sense by now.  
>
I don't think so.  Zachmann, as a consultant, gains significantly (in
proportion to his relatively small business) by making his prediction for
come true, thus there are quite reasonable grounds for assuming that
personal aggrandizement is a possible motive.

I don't trust Zachmann worth a darn (this is the guy, after all, who
called Windows 3.1 a catastrophe (on Compuserve) last April or May!),
but I suspect he's not really merely out for himself, that he really
thinks he's right in his asessment.  Too bad he can't see the forest for
the trees -- it cost him his credibiltiy in my eyes (though I doubt he
loses much sleep over that!)

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
  

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:16:54 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <7536@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.171907.3735@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>>DOS and WIN16 is not too good in the pre-beta SDK, but do you think,
>>that MS will ship the release version with poorer support for DOS &
>>WIN16 than OS/2 2.0 currently has?
>
>If not, then why is MS only claiming to support the top 100 Windows/DOS apps?
>OS/2 does a LOT better than that.

     What is OS/2's claim?  Does IBM claim 100% DOS compatibility?

					-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: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:10:19 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct06.062531.14042@microsoft.com> mikegal@microsoft.com (Michael Galos) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.171752.23317@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>>But MS was helping other companies debug their apps when porting from
>>3.0 to 3.1.  They refused to help DR simply because that product was
>>in direct competition with MS's mainstay: DOS.  Sounds a bit unfair to
>>me.  If you help one company, you have to help any who ask.
>
>What other OS vendor did we help? We certainly did help application
>vendors work under Windows. We've done that since Windows 1 and 
>continue it to this day both directly through Product Support and
>indirectly through open specs like Windows Open Services.

But DR-DOS was not competing with Windows.  On the contrary, if MS
wanted to aid Windows, they should have aided DR-DOS, since DR
customers also want to use Windows.

Now if they wanted help getting DR-DOS compatible with an upcoming
version of DOS, I'd agree - let them figure it out on their own.  But
Windows is not DOS, and the two do not compete with each other.
-- 
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: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
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: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:59:38 GMT

In  <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.

Mikael, you surely know more about OS2toYOU than Brian, but did he say
anything wrong about it? No, I don't think so. Also I think OS2toYOU is
one of the finest programs for OS/2.

But now to HPFS386. HPFS386 doesn't give you any concurrent multiuser
capabilities. If a user logs on locally, a remote user using OS2toYOU
or any other package has the same security context as the local user.

Also IBM used the old LAN-MAN 2.0 (not 2.1) HPFS386 and ported it to
OS/2 2.0. So there is no real security. Just replace HPFS with HPFS386
on the OS/2 2.0 Disk 1 and boot with it, you will get full access to
your HPFS386 partition. The term "local security" is really misused
here. Only the MS LANMAN 2.1 HPFS386 supports some real local security.

Christoph
--
Internet: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de
Bitnet  : HAMPE2 AT DMRHRZ11
Fido    : 2:243/660
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I hate to tell you this, but...
Date: 11 Oct 1992 15:37:24 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <hatton.718773552@cgl.ucsf.edu> hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
[about parting with the Windows manual title page to get the OS/2 discount]
>Agreed. Actually, I didn't "part with it" so much as I terminated it
>with extreme prejudice. IBM seems to have accepted the pieces. :-)

Can't have been that extreme; the pieces must still have been recognizable. I
doubt seriously that they'd accept the ashes of a Windows manual treated
properly as proof. :-) (Mine is going with me to the rifle range next time I'm
out there...)
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:57:31 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct07.101657.16483@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Sk
elly) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.084217.28802@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com wrote:
>> In article <1992Oct5.215925.6501@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@
cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>
>> Regardless of the drivel below that underestimates the multi-user and
>> file protection mechanisms of UNIX. Be it true or not, it does not actually
>> address the question that was asked.
>>
>> IS NT multi-user.
>>
>> In the traditional and widely held ( non-MS  ) view of multi-user I.E
>> CONCURRENT MULTIPLE USERS ON A SINGLE MACHINE/CPU not Win NT 3.1 is
>> NOT!!! multi-user.
>>
>>
>> Martin Smith
>> msmith@netcom.com
>>
>>
>Okay, I guess I've had my head in the sand or something.  I have yet to
>see anyone use a multiuser system as you seem to think it is.  How
>does one hook 5 mice up to a computer so 5 people can use it.  How does
>one hook 5 keyboards up.
>
>THE SCREEN DEVICE OF NT ONLY ALLOWS ONE USER TO HAVE OWNERSHIP OF IT.
>
>Everything else is pretty much multiuser.  Each process has it's own
>user/security context.  I can run processes on someone elses machine
>when they're logged on.  These processes run under my security context.
>
>What is more multiuser than that?  having 5 keyboards and 5 mice
>hooked up and one screen so 5 people can type on the screen at one time?

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's
support.
>
>SHEESH.
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Que es mas macho? (was Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.)
Date: 10 Oct 92 23:28:47 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <Bvv9pr.7vI@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> kelley@vet.vet.purdue.edu wrote:
> In article <1992Oct09.044341.15025@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> - 
> - Could you post evidence to support this claim (IBM was content to support
> - both Windows and OS/2).
> - Thanks...
> - 
> Uh, Pete, IBM includes an implementation of Windows 3.0 in their OS/2 product.
> 
We were discussing pre-breakup and during-breakup stuff, not OS/2.  IBM
added Win3 support after their breakup.  They really started into getting
Win3 into the product during and after their restructuring.
The thread was talking about whether IBM was content to support both
Windows and OS/2 and if that had anything to do with the breakup.


> In addition, I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of the wacking back and 
> forth about terminals is, but I'd like to point out that the 
> terminal/host model of computation certainly does not require individual
> RS-232 ports for each 'terminal'.
purpose?  'cause we don't anything better to discuss, maybe?

And yes, the terminal/host model doesn't require RS-232 ports, but that's
what the people who are complaining about NT's support for this are complaining
about.  They are complaining 'cause they say that they can't log in through
a terminal connected to a serial port.  They are saying that if you can't
do that, then the system isn't multiuser.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 08 Oct 92 09:31:17 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

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?

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.

petesk@microsoft.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
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 00:30:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.193521.10829@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>Ignore Linville, he's too prejudiced to understand anything.
>

>Brian

Excuse me, Sturgill, but if that's not the pot calling the kettle black, then
I don't know what is!

John W. Linville




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
|  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM (Gess Shankar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: 32-bit OS/2 Apps List
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:46:34 GMT
Organization: Knowledge Exchange, GA, US of A

jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:

> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> 
> >Remember that the list contained not existing apps, but rather
> >_existing_ and _planned_ apps.
> >If you consider that list is likely a best case scenario for the OS/2 2.0
> >apps in the next 2 years, then no I don't think they're even close to
> >adequate.
> 
> Before everybody goes off basing conclusions on this list, when is
> this list dated?  The last such list I remember was just about a year
> old, released before OS/2 2.0 GA (or LA for that matter), and had a
> couple hundred vendors on it.  I have a hard time believing the number
> has only doubled or so since the release of OS/2 2.0 GA, and the opening
> of the DAP to anyone in the world.
> -- 
The world-wide DAP phenomenon is recent and probably irrelevent at this
time. Besides, becoming a member of the DAP does not necessarily mean
applications being developed fast and furious. Also the updated list,
if any, may find some deserters of the camp too.

I tend to think that most development is being done within corporate
environments and probably some vertical applications. It is going to
require a lot of evangelising on the part of IBM to create some sort of
grass-root mobilization of developers of all sizes and shapes. They are
indeed trying hard, but so far the Microsoft machinery has been running
circles around them.

IBM has never had to deal with the customer at large. Much of the trade
has been via SE's etc. direct to corporate customers. They have always
done this well. But I think they are finding it difficult to change their
style to match the street-smart Microsofties'. If they can continue to
increase the installed base, then developers cannot ignore the market,
buggy tools or not. Right now developers who have to make a choice may
tend to lean the Microsoft way. And developers wanting a niche market
will be sure find some riches in the OS/2 arena...

GeSS
--
Gess Shankar      |<><>|Internet: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM                |<><>|
Knowledge Exchange|<><>|{rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!knex!gess|<><>|
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:30:50 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct11.192109.49278@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.233819.303@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skel
>>That makes him more credable?
>>MS's gains are of an understandable nature, purely financial.
>>Zachmanns gains are of a personal nature, hardly understandable.
>>He obviously has some sort of thing to gain by slamming MS every
>>chance he gets.  He has shown this in many of his articles.  I especially
>>like the one where he told people to go out and buy a word processor that
>>wasn't that great because it would keep money out of microsofts pockets.
>
>Okay, what are his reasons?  I'm waiting...  Well, I can't think of one, and I
>doubt you can either.

     Zachmann is attempting to implement a self-fulfilling prophecy.
By his unwavering support of OS/2, his utter failure to see any of
its weak spots, and his presentation of misinformation about Windows NT
as fact, he is trying to further his own career as a columnist by
making his own prediction come true.  Which is fine with me, by the
way.  The main problem, though, is his unfounded claims about undue
influence by Microsoft (which might also hurt Windows NT sales and
therefore help further his own career) without a single shred of
supporting evidence.


>  Therefore, I would wager that he really just doesn't
>like MicroSoft.  That isn't really all that odd.

    It's fine not to like Microsoft.


>There are a lot of reasons not to like MicroSoft, and obviously he doesn't.

     Which is his right.  So be it.


>This doesn't quite cut it as a hidden agenda.  MS has a lot of reason, mostly
>financial, for making him look bad.

     This is reasonable but there is no evidence that any agent of
Microsoft ever did _anything_ to make Zachmann "look bad."  On the
other hand, by spreading his allegations Zachmann has done quite a bit
to hurt Microsoft.


>  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.


>  Maybe he just doesn't like you
>company for whatever reason.  It is his job as an editorial columnist to pick
>sides of an issue and to raise discussions.  He obviously didn't pick your
>side.  Too bad but it isn't going to happen every time.

      I doubt that anyone will criticize Mr. Zachmann for choosing the
side that he did.  He can be criticized for irresponsibly journalism,
however, which I feel he has been practicing.

					-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: mikegal@microsoft.com (Michael Galos)
Subject: Re: Multiuser
Date: 07 Oct 92 08:21:53 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

Mike, you seem to have missed the point on the "PC revolution".

The reason PCs became the success story of the last decade is that they
were designed to improve the efficiency of the computer to the user 
rather than improving how efficient we could make users.

If you want to avoid wasting cycles, you could always go back to batch
mode single tasking. Almost pure efficiency for the processors. No
overhead for multitasking, no loss of cycles waiting for user input
no need for wasting core on interaction. You could even hold the jobs
until you had enough to justify loading the compiler.

Enough sarcasm. The point is that keeping processor loading at a
maximum is often tied to making the system harder to use and less
accessable. I started out on punch cards and, nostalgia for the old
IBM 029 aside, I don't look back with any fondness.

Given a choice of wasting the processor's time or wasting a person's
time, I think that battle is over and the user won.

Mike

-- 
==============================================================================
Declare Sub Disclaim Lib "Standards" Alias "__StandardDisclaimer" (x As Any)
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: garyng@gnct.com (garyng)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:31:13 GMT
Organization: Global Network Communication Technology Co.

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

Because NT is NOT THERE yet :-)

And there is already complain saying MS put something they don't need in
NT and now there is complain saying that why can't MS put everything in NT
if you are MS, who are you going to listen to ?

-gary
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy