From: rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: My impression of NT Beta. . .
Date: 13 Dec 92 04:07:55 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <1992Dec7.011742.18641@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com writes:
>
>I just have to comment on this report. And before you start saying "Oh no,
>another NT biased so-and-so", a lot of this is relevant to OS/2 as well.
>Imagine the report is entitled "OS/2 offers little new technology".
>
>If I seem biased against UNIX, I'm just trying to balance the report. Don't
>tell me you aren't biased towards OS/2? :-)
>
>In article <1992Dec4.031835.4669@frog.CRDS.COM>, rmk@frog.CRDS.COM (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>>            WINDOWS NT OFFERS LITTLE NEW TECHNOLOGY, 
>>                 SAYS UNIX INTERNATIONAL REPORT
>>                        by Maureen O'Gara
>>  
>>In a nutshell Locus says, "NT breaks little new ground 
>>technically."
>
>Correct. The internals of NT are astoundingly similar to VMS, which has
>been around since 1978, and which I consider a good operating system.
>(Personal opinion only, no flames.)

And NT, like VMS, is dependent on little endian processors.  Sort of reduces
the claimed portability.

>>Despite a 95.2% 
>>compound annual growth rate, it says NT as a client system won't 
>>pass desktop Unix anytime soon.
>
>Hardly surprising in a UNIX International report. OS/2 is also growing rapidly,
>from what I gather in this group.

OS/2 doesn't claim to be a "UNIX killer".

>>Locus, meanwhile, has dissected the 
>>preliminary release of NT that Microsoft is circulating for a 
>>functional comparison with desktop Unix systems like SCO, 
>>Interactive, Solaris, Destiny and UnixWare. It warns users 
>>interested in open systems to be wary of NT because of 
>>Microsoft's reluctance to implement standards or create something 
>>more than a limited proprietary system. NT ignores Posix 1003.2, 
>>Posix 1002.4, Posix.2, Posix.4, XPG3, SVID3, FIPS and X Windows 
>>conformance. 
>
>Ditto OS/2. Did that stop you buying it?

No, because it is the best OS for running Intel commodity platform
shrinkwrapped applications.

>>NT is, however, compliant with Posix 1003.1 base 
>>functions but it gets there via a subsystem that does not 
>>integrate with the Windows environment and Windows applications 
>>are not Posix-compliant.
>
>...which is why it doesn't integrate. X isn't POSIX compliant either. Neither
>is PM. I can tell you're upset now. :-)

Ah, but Windows isn't compatible with the UNIX market.

>>NT claims to be portable but ignores 
>>most of the key open systems portability standards.
>
>NT *is* portable: it runs on at least three hardware platforms. The software
>that runs on it is also portable: NT will run DOS, Windows, OS/2, and POSIX
>software. Does it run UNIX? No, but neither does OS/2, which also runs DOS,
>Windows, and OS/2 software.
>
>Anyway, IBM are promising a portable OS/2.

And portable OS/2 may well end up being little endian only.

>>Microsoft 
>>also continues to press for acceptance of its proprietary LAN, e-
>>mail and other technologies as standards despite the existance of 
>>de facto and de jure standards supported by desktop Unix systems, 
>>a position that must give users pause.
>
>TCP/IP, DCE, X.400: Proprietary? UNIX doesn't support these?

Don't ask me how I know this, but DCE for NT is still on paper.

>What LAN specific technologies are standard? Both LAN Manager and Novell are
>de facto and de jure standards that run on UNIX systems.

Only in nightmares.

>>                            Hoopla
>> 
>>Of course just to run the thing users will have to be prepared to 
>>buy more hardware than is typical on a desktop. Configurations 
>>need 16Mb or more to achieve acceptable performance.
>
>How many UNIX systems do you know that run in 640KB? Even OS/2 won't do that.
>Greater functionaltity means more resources.

UNIX SVR3.2 is still a viable product from a dozen vendors.  It will run
easily in 4 megs of memory.

>>Once up 
>>users run the risk of losing data if there's a system incident 
>>because of the way NT's file system is built.
>
>This is blatantly incorrect. Compare this with the UNIX file system. How often
>do you run fsck on OS/2 when it crashes?

With the Veritas file system in UNIX SVR4.2 you can shut the system dowm 
by flipping the big switch, and fsck won't have to run when it comes up.

Sync on last write.

>>And for all the 
>>hoopla about NT one would think the thing would be multi-user but 
>>it's not. It supports only one user at a time. It can support 
>>multiple clients but only one actual user.
>
>Not this issue again! Given a telnet daemon (or some other method of
>remote terminal access), as many users as you like can log on at the
>same time. Furthermore, given that there's only one keyboard, one display, and
>one mouse...

Given?  It comes with UNIX.  It comes with the OS/2 TCP/IP package.

>>Users hell bent on 
>>OLTP, the key downsizing element had better look elsewhere. It's 
>>not available to NT.
>
>Also blatantly incorrect.
>
>>It may also be hard for an NT user to 
>>communicate. NT supports basic terminal requirements through add-
>>on programs and combinations of hardware and software.  Limited 
>>direct-connect support for widely available TCP/IP capabilities
>>are also included. However, the TCP/IP in the developer's release
>>supports only access from NT to other TCP/IP systems. Inbound 
>>TCP/IP sessions are not available and it offers only limited 
>>terminal emulation capabilities.
>
>...which does not mean that NT can't do these things.

But "not available" certainly means something.

>>File transfer functions, for 
>>instance, are not supported.
>
>Hmm, I always knew those network drive icons were a fake.
>If "file transfer functions" means ftp and rcp, yuk.

They work fine for me.

>>A user also has to be prepared for 
>>only rudimentary backup and restore features making NT a dicey 
>>choice for mission-critical and commercially sensitive 
>>environments.
>
>What does UNIX prefer: tar and dump/restore!? 

It has been a long time since you used UNIX.

>>NT provides C2-level security only when the user 
>>selects the new NT File System (NTFS) option instead of the MS-
>>DOS File System or OS/2's High Performance File System.
>
>What's the problem? If you use a non-secure file system, of course it isn't C2.
>Not having a root password isn't C2 secure, either.

Personally, I hate C2 security, it makes systems harder to administrate.

SCO learned there lesson on this one.

>>There is 
>>likely to be a compatibility issue moving data from either of 
>>these systems to NTFS and with applications that object to being 
>>moved between secure and insure files.
>
>What compatibility issue?
>
>Hey, I can't overwrite the system files any more. I object!

Or the application may become confused and start writing trash.

>>While Microsoft is 
>>committed to a future custom version of NT that's B2 secure, its 
>>plans for network security are not clear.
>
>I don't believe the NCSC rates network security at all.

That's changing.

>>NT's 
>>greatest strength, on the other hand, is its compatibility with 
>>Windows. It's a strength, however, that comes at a price. Users 
>>looking to develop distributed client/server applications, 
>>beware. NT does not provide remote windowing or networking 
>>services. Distributed graphical applications will be far more
>>difficult to develop and will not integrate with existing 
>>applications. The addition of networking capabilities will mean a 
>>significant level of additional complexity and will require a 
>>proprietary and probably expensive support package.
>
>Rubbish. RPC is no more difficult (well, only very slightly :-) to use than a
>normal procedure call, that's the whole point of RPCs. NT does not provide
>remote windowing because it chose a different display model. Of course it
>provides networking services, they're built in. The support package is called
>NT.
>
>>On the GUI side, a user's ability to manipulate system objects 
>>from the desktop is limited in NT as are drag-and-drop 
>>capabilities, a definite drawback. It does not generally support 
>>dragging-and-dropping files onto other applications nor can its 
>>drag-and-drop be tailored.
>
>These are not NT limitations, but application limitations. For
>instance, Access (a Windows program, but it's the same GUI) uses
>drag-and-drop fine. I haven't seen that many drag-and-drop Motif
>applications yet.
>
>>NT is not as easy to install as Windows. 
>>It requires the right adaptors and a CD-ROM. Network installation 
>>is particularly tricky and TCP/IP start-up is now something done 
>>from a MS-DOS session.
>
>UNIX is easier?
>
>>In general, when something doesn't 
>>work right from the GUI, the error messages require significant 
>>technical skills. The preliminary version is clearly not for the 
>>naive user.
>
>These two sentences are my favourites. A UNIX report complaining about
>"significant technical skills". :-)
>
>If I remember correctly, OS/2 provides a fairly sensible error message by using
>something like the "error <n>" command. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Yes, based on the error display convention introduced by Microsoft in MSDOS
and OS/2 1.0.

>>Compounding the situation, NT's help facility is only minimally 
>>acceptable.  There is no standard way of adding multimedia help. 
>
>No comment.
>
>>There is also no character-based 
>>interface for remote access making it clumsy as a server.
>
>Not from Microsoft, no. But then, a lot of UNIX utilities aren't provided by
>the UNIX retailer, either.

But these particular utilities are provided with UNIX, as it is a multiuser,
multitasking operating system right out of the box.

>>Locus believes Microsoft has 
>>underestimated the importance of open networking in the 
>>marketplace.
>
>Oh dear, here we go again. Define "open". How about "2 million copies used"?
>
>>NT, as 
>>study pointed out, is not a multiuser system raising suspicions 
>>about Microsoft's motives.
>
>I weep. See multiuser stuff above.
>
>>While it can be used to share files 
>>and resources like printers, clients must be systems based on 
>>Windows or Windows NT.
>
>Or OS/2. Or DOS.
>
>>Environments not currently using PCs will 
>>have to replace existing terminals and systems with Windows-based 
>>desktops.
>
>Surprise, surprise.
>
>>With no native capability for remote administration and 
>>maintenance, it will be difficult to set up NT servers in 
>>locations without a skilled administrator.
>
>Another blatant incorrectness. Wait, I take it back. Hermes may not be
>available for a few months after NT's release.

So Joe off the street can setup and administrate an NT server with no prior
knowledge?

>>                         Emulation
>> 
>>On the application front, the study says the MS-DOS and Windows 
>>emulation scheme Microsoft uses leaves developers facing a 
>>complete conversion to take advantage of any of the new advanced 
>>features.
>
>How else is a DOS program going to use threads?
>
>>Each subsystem provides its own interface and 
>>applications can't use more than one. For instance, it's either 
>>the Windows API or Posix.
>
>That's because POSIX says nothing about GUIs. If there was a GUI, it wouldn't
>be POSIX compliant.

>On to the next round of bashing whichever head pops up next. :-)
>
>PJDM
>--
>Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
>Digital Equipment Corporation   |
>Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat


And DEC is planning to offer 1 low end Alpha for $7000+ that will be
available with NT.