From: brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Why people bow and scrape before NT (long)
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:09:53 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <KJj-d2#@engin.umich.edu> spexet@engin.umich.edu (Dennis Robert Spexet) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.121607.9974@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>or not, as a matter of fact what I really like is that it has logons, giving
>>per-user customizations. As to C2 certification... get a life.
>
>Perhaps you may not give a damn about whether or not the security claims
>are rated by an independent firm, but you may rest assured that there are
>many firms and agencies that are very concerned about such claims.  While
>you may tell such people to "get a life", that is nothing compared to what
>they would tell MS or yourself if you went into their office and tried to
>claim that NT was C2-secure.

The get a life comment was directed at you, one of those anal-retentive
individuals that don't believe it is appropriate for a system to
declare that it has the features of C2 (or other ratings) security.  If
you need C2 certified I'm sure that there will be an OEM AFTER NT IS
RELEASED that will go through the unduly hard and lengthy process that
the government has created.  No doubt they'll earn quite a portion of
my tax dollars by charging high prices for having to go through all the
nonsense.

This is besides the point.  NT has that level of features... this is good..
if they (I think they have to do so in conjunction with a specific hardware
vendor) get certification.. you can be happy too.

>
>Until it's rated as C2-secure by someone other than MS or yourself, then it
>cannot and should not be trusted as such.

That's correct, if you must have C2 certification, then you must wait for
that certification.  Most places would be better served by have C2-level
features now, and then in specific instances getting the C2 certified version
if necessary.  I can only assume that you don't run any OS... there were
(at least as of a year ago, when I actually cared about such things) VERY FEW
that had been certified... can you say how many there are now?

>>>2.  I suspect that you will not see too many "neat and cheap" GUI apps on NT.
>>>    Other than word processors and spreadsheets, I think you are going to see
>>>    workstation-level prices (read:  many thousands of $$$) for NT apps.
>>>    This is merely speculation, though.
>>Snicker!!!  The NT apps that are out already are priced normally... with
>>as many developers as are headed to NT, I'm sure competition will keep
>>the price down.
>
>Which NT apps do you refer to?  I didn't know that there were NT apps out
>in the marketplace yet.
>
>Do not confuse reality with idealism.  While your claims of low-priced 
>NT apps would be nice if they came true, you provide absolutely no evidence
>to support your claims.  Until NT actually is released, and applications
>that support the NT platform (as opposed to those that serve the Win3.1
>or DOS or OS/2 platforms) are released, your claims are nothing but mere
>speculation and idealism, and should be treated as such.

I came back from the NT Developer's conference with an arm full of glossies.
From memory: Hamiltion C-shell, Blue Sky Softwares complete suite of GUI
tools, Chameleon had TCP/IP add-ons.  I believe were 40 vendors
shipping products for NT, I'm sure that number grow daily.  Certainly
I intend to be shipping my product before NT's release.  SGI is already
shipping hardware that comes with NT running on it (check some of
my previous posts.. it had the phone number).  There are two or three
small companies shipping MIPS based machines made to the ACE spec.
Two of them have multiprocessors that run NT.  I think one was Acler, but
I don't remember the other one at all... someone want to help this guy
get a machine running NT and some apps? :-)

>>>4.  Your comments about OS/2 and its multimedia API are not only arrogant
>>>    and snide (my personal opinion), but they also seem to be largely
>>>    incorrect as well.  Many people are developing for OS/2 and its MME, many
>>>    of them in-house.  More people are developing for this than you think.
>>It's simple, you have to pay $149 to get OS/2's MME... how will you
>>ever get people to develop low and medium end apps?  Windows NT's MM is the
>>same API as Windows 3.1's there are already apps.  3.1->NT porting is easy.
>
>See above.  Until true NT apps exist, your claims are mere speculation.
Hmm.... I suspect if I hunt around, one or two will already exist.  More
importantly there are many available for 3.1... it's an easy port.  That
I know for a fact as I've been studying just that in the last week.
I imagine by beta time, it will be quite easy.  I already know of one third
party tool that helps you do this.

>>>WPS is more than just a shell.  It's a way of interacting with the user.
>>Shell. noun. a program that allows users to interact with a system.
>
>A shell may allow a user to interact with a system, but the shell in and
>of itself does not constitute a GUI.
Huh?  My comment was that while I missed the idea of WPS, I didn't miss
the implementation that much (as it is buggy). WPS is just a shell... were
does the comment come from?

...
>Nevertheless, I would much rather use WPS/PM than the Windows GUI, though
>I will admit that this is purely a personal preference.
I assume you mean by Windows GUI, the Program Manager/File Mangler combination.
We agree here, I like the style of WPS better.  It has better features
too.

>>>As far as shareware shells go, WPS is going to be hard to beat.  It's got
>>>more capabilities than you have observed.
>>Ah... now you know what I've been observing... and you're worried about
>>C2 certification... are you from the CIA? FBI? :-)
>
>I work for neither of those organizations, though I must admit that C2
>certification does concern me, since it is one feature that I would enjoy
>seeing in an operating system.

You mean you're all upset about C2 level vs. certification, and you don't
even have to have the certification?  Sheesh!  What makes you think that
some government testing procedure actually adds real value?  The only
thing it really shows is that the company had the money to go through
the procedure and that indeed they do meet the checklist.  Why not do
the checklist yourself.  C2 is relatively moderate in requirement.
Mainly you have to be able to log that someone has done something.
It does not specify much in the way of prevention.
Now if you had a need for B1, then I could see why you might want it certified
as a butt-covering measure.. but C2?

>>>I also have 800x600 SVGA video under OS/2.  Isn't it nice?
>>Must have a trident card... otherwise you don't have seemless windows... that
>>for many if not most users means it just doesn't count.
>
>Nonsense.  I am running an Orchid Prodesigner.  While I do not run seamless
>Windows, I run both OS/2 and Windows fullscreen apps just fine in SVGA mode.
I too have an Orchid Prodesigner... unfortunately at 70hz, I can't even
get it to work in the non-seemless (seemfull?) mode.
Why have "windows" if you have to run the programs full screen?
Sorry but lack of seemless is lack of driver.

>>>NT is not even a beta.  It is, at most, an alpha-level developer's kit, with
>>>the stuff you need to write NT apps.  You think more of NT than what it
>>>really has.
>>Wow... I use it every day... I must be having long term halloucinations...
>>you'll save me won't you?
>
>I'm not here to "save" you.  To be quite honest, I really couldn't care less
>about your choice of operating systems.  I'm merely stating a point, which
>you can take as you will.
>
>I've seen both OS/2 and NT in action.  While NT promises to be one hell of
>an operating system when it is complete, the fact that it isn't complete
>is a factor that must be taken into consideration.
>
>>>OS/2, for the most part, has the "normal" features you speak of.  NT is
>>>missing most of the features you speak of.
Gratuituous editing!!!!!  NT is not a system for end-users yet,  I don't,
didn't, and will not claim that it is.  It is however fully featured
minus the TAPE API and POSIX and miscellaneous small parts.
The existing parts are quite definitely buggy... it is after all not
in beta yet.  Exert your imagination, and picture NT a few months from
now.  If I had not done that, certainly the OS/2 LA release would never
have convenced me that OS/2 had a chance.  It was SLOW and had no
seemless window support.  It was easily crashable.  On the other hand it
was clear that it was fixable... unfortunately IBM released OS/2 2.0 before
it was ready.

>>Where's my super-VGA... why don't some of my Windows programs run... why
>>are they so slow there?
>
>SVGA is already running on many boards, though not all.  As for Windows
Bullshit... there are precisely 3 drivers available now, 2 of which
are in beta.  Only one supports seemless windows.  3 does not equal many.

>programs not running, I claim that most of them do, with few exceptions.
I never said that most don't, I said I have some that don't... they
need Windows 3.1 features.

>Furthermore, consider that I could ask why NT will not run PM apps.
Microsoft has not claimed they will support 2.0 PM apps.
They will eventually (maybe) support 1.X PM apps (both of them :-)).
I personally believe they won't.
OS/2 is of course the "integration" platform or other marketing nonsense...
which leads me as a user to believe that things like seemless-windows
should already be in the package.

>
>D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu
>Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
>The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
>Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109


Brian
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy