HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 13 Oct 92 08:36:17 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1992Oct12.181831.23416@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> I don't know if my
|> problem is that I've never seen X set up any other way than using xdm
|> or what, but I haven't seen anything 'inherently insecure' about it.

OK, it's time to go back to basics. (Please don't feel patronised, Fred, this
is not aimed at you personally.)

First let's check our context. We are talking about multiple users using the
same X server at the same time.

There are two basic security problems:

1) Once an X client has a connection to the display, there is no restriction
on the requests which that client can execute or the resources it can access.
It can draw into any window, move any window or even kill any window. It can
watch keystrokes going to other clients and it can Grab the keyboard and
prevent access to any other client. And so on.

This means that you have to trust the other user's application to behave in a
responsible way. This includes unwanted behaviour caused by poor programming
as well as deliberate sabotage.

2) Connection setup is authenticated, so only "permitted" clients can access
the display (So far so good). However there are two currently implemented
authentication schemes:

a) Host-based authentication: "Anyone from machine Z can access the display"
This is clearly a disaster, especially in the context of our discussion.

b) Key/Cookie-based authentication: "Anyone quoting the right cookie or
holding the right key can access the display" This is better, but the
keys/cookies are allocated to a *user* not a process. In particular, they
reside in a read-protected file in the users filespace. This means that once a
user is given the key/cookie, that user can run *any* program on that X
server, not just an application that is known to be "responsible" (see above).
Also, there is only one key/cookie and it is valid for the lifetime of the
server. You cannot give access to an application and then revoke it later, you
would have to reset the X server.

I think that the vast majority of users do not frequently run applications
owned by other users. I think users tend to fire up an xterm and do an
su/login/rlogin from there, which is simpler and safer. It also conforms to
the NT model of the world where access to the display is policed by an
application rather than the window system itself.

Of course, the reason for all this is that the implementation of security
checks on every window system operation would be very expensive.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:18:31 GMT

In <1992Oct12.094654.17676@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.042656.4288@netcom.com>, xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>|> Actually, I'll be willing to believe that NT is multi-user as soon as
>|> someone manufactures an NT-terminal (sorta like an X-terminal, but
>|> it speaks NT-style GUI, rather than X-style GUI).

>Eh? Think about the relationship between a network window system and a
>multi-user operating system. Either can be implemented without the other, so
>the provision of one says nothing about the other.

>I don't quite understand why people are using X as a stick to beat the
>multi-user capabilities of NT with. X is essentially single-user and can only
>be used by multiple users in an inherently insecure fashion.

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused as to why you say this.  Are you
assuming that there is only one X daemon or what?  I don't know if my
problem is that I've never seen X set up any other way than using xdm
or what, but I haven't seen anything 'inherently insecure' about it.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Tidbits about NT and OS/2 from the trade rags.
Date: 11 Oct 92 10:19:48 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <7541@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:
> In article <1992Oct10.233819.303@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >> Because [Zachmann] has little to gain by making up such an incident.
> >That makes him more credable?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> >MS's gains are of an understandable nature, purely financial.
> >Zachmanns gains are of a personal nature, hardly understandable.
> 
> What gains?
Ask him.  Maybe he's placing the blame for all that happened so he
doesn't have to face the blame publicly himself.  Maybe space aliens
are paying him.  I don't know.

> 
> >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.
> 
> As someone accused me of doing, you don't believe him just because you don't
> like what he has to say.

No, but close.  I don't believe him just because I don't believe what
he has to say.  Have you read his articles?  He makes all of us look
conservative in our posts and could put all of us to shame as far as
stupid little flame wars go.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:38:04 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>     I told no one to wait for anything.  I mentioned in passing that
>when the Cairo shell was released, there would be people that would
>like it.  I was told that this statement was FUD.

Well, there are people who like piercing their nipples and foreskins;
so what? If MS managed to put out Cairo and *not one person* liked it,
I'd eat a diskette. So your statement was not fud, there was zero
uncertainty; it was, however, an empty point. We'll deal with whatever
OO interface MS finally comes up with - once they come up with it.

For real FUD, I could say that the Cairo demo was solidly laughed at
recently, and even more embarassingly the machine it was run on crashed;
but I merely provide this as an example of FUD. :-)

Tom
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: OS/2 because! (was NT: Why?)
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:09:12 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct14.212953.5821@gw.wmich.edu> x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.213415.29199@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>> 
>>      Here we go again with the vaporware debate.  If the OS/2 Win3.1 beta
>> is a valid discussion topic, so then is Cairo - neither is released yet,
>> but both have some bearing on the future of the product.
>>      Which will it be?  Does it have to be shrink-wrapped to be valid?
>> 
>
>	Ahem, it is valid to be discussed if there is a real life product
>that most people can get ahold of.  Cairo isn't even in alpha yet.  No
>one except a few elites have even seen what it may look like.

     Well, those few elites and everyone who was at the last Object
World.


>  The 3.1
>code of OS/2 is in the hands of most of the people here.

     Is this a true statement?


>   We all talk
>about NT and it is valid because it is a real live prodcut that a lot
>of people have.  

     I still see several posts a day reminding me or another poster
that we shouldn't be talking about Windows NT, since it is
"vaporware."  Some sort of consistency would be nice - that's all
I'm asking for.

     It appears that your working definition is that anything that
is in the hands of some of the people on the newsgroup is valid for
discussion.  This does preclude any mention of the myriad OS/2 apps
that will be available "real soon now".

     It really is a fuzzy issue.  Since it doesn't appear that anyone
is going to come up with a consistent definition that works, I propose
that we drop the "vaporware" cry entirely and let people discuss
whatever they feel like discussing, whether we have it running on
our desktop or not.

					-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: bab@se39.wg2.waii.com (Brian Button)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Summary of IBM presence at Houston computer show
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:45:09 GMT
Organization: Western Geophysical Exploration Products

Earlier this week I posted a message complaining about the lack of an
advertised OS/2 presence at the Houston Strictly Business Computer
Show. The only expected result from this post was to blow off a little
steam and make myself feel better. Boy, was I wrong.

By 10:00 AM the next morning, a local IBM rep called me, thanking me
for my post, and telling me about how it had been referred to IBM on a
national level. IBM really does read the net, and they care about what
we think.

Now about the show. IBM's presence wasn't everything I had hoped for,
but it was a lot more than I feared. They had a single pavilion, half
of it dedicated to AIX and half to OS/2. They were having hourly
drawings for a free copy of OS/2 and were handing out free OS/2 demo
disks. After talking to a few of the OS/2 folks at this booth, I
started to get kind of a warm feeling about the future of OS/2. They
reported that a number of people had come by with favorable responses
to OS/2, a bunch of people watched the OS/2 demos, and took free demo
copies themselves.

I would have liked to see a bit more (read ANY) pre-show publicity
from IBM, but at least they were there. It's a starting point.

bab
--
|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Brian Button          | email : button@wg2.waii.com                        |
| Design Engineer       |         bab@buster.stafford.tx.us                  |
| Western Geophysical   | voice : (713)964-6221                              |
| 3600 Briarpark        |                                                    |
| Houston, Texas  77042 |                                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: Os/2ers whine again
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 00:04:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct05.183840.22457@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.103845.796@leland.Stanford.EDU> yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong) writes:
>>
>>In my opinion, this is all just crap.  OS/2 3.0 was meant to be a continuation,
>>"successor" in a way, to OS/2 2.0.  It was announced long before the formal
>>divorce and final break-up of IBM and Microsoft.
>
>     If there was a product named OS/2 3.0 being produced, I would
>agree that it would most likely be a successor to OS/2 2.0.  No such
>product is in production anywhere, as far as I know.  Do you have some
>other information?
>

Microsoft in fact announced that there was to be MS OS/2 3.0.  There is strong
suspicion that what was to be MS OS/2 3.0 became what is now Windows NT,
since the specs that was given by Microsoft (or leaked to the press, I'm
not sure) was suspiciously similar to Windows NT.

>
>>  Unless you can convince me
>>Windows NT has nothing to do with OS/2 3.0, then it is pointless to say that
>>NT has nothing to do with OS/2.  OS/2 3.0 is not just a code name for NT.
>>It was what Microsoft's original vision of what OS/2 would be.
>
>      And original visions are subject to change, wouldn't you
>agree?
>
>					-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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I went ahead and did it....
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:09:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Oct14.190927.27361
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <wiegand.718897631@lido16> wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) writes:

>garyng@gnct.com (garyng) writes:

>>> (2) Windows Incompatability...

>>  OS2's Window support is kind of 'well we can run SOME window apps'. If 
>>  you rely heavily on Window apps. forget about OS2

>What? Have you actually used OS/2?
>Name some Windows apps that *can't* run under OS/2.
>Don't make statements like this unless you can give examples.

Well, you KNOW what apps he's going to list, don't you?  Stuff that
requires the DLL from enhanced mode (Mathematica is the only one I
know of, but there are probably a couple of others) and the Windows
3.1 specific stuff (which, other than the Applets that ship with it,
is damned rare right now -- although some of the new stuff is saying
it requires Windows 3.1).

This, to folks looking for flame bait in these groups, means that it
runs 'some' Windows stuff.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7173 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2391
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unprofessional Posts from Brian S.
Date: 12 Oct 1992 07:39:13 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston


What he said.

I'm on the beta test list for a piece of software that Brian's written for
OS/2. It's an impressive piece of work, and fills a definite need. Even so,
I've quit using it, not because of problems with the program (Brian's done a
great job of fixing those reported to him), but rather simply because I have
no confidence that Brian will carry it on into the production phase: it's
obvious that working in the OS/2 arena is not something that he wants to do
any more.

I met Brian at Usenix in June, and at the time, he was really in favor of
OS/2. I don't know just what IBM did to him, but his reaction appears to be of
the same magnitude as someone who got screwed by the Microsoft abandonment and
got stuck for $2600 personally. I'm sorry to see it.
-- 
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)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 10:42:19 GMT

brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>Are you just being an asshole, or did you misread my statement above?
>NT's support is better than that in 1.X.  OS/2 2.0 goes way overboard
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     
 OS/2's features are                 Windows 3.x.  NT
>with 40 or so options. 
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      multi-user, TCP/IP, multimedia, lots of other things that should
      be options on a PC but are part of the base OS.

Show a little balance to your thinking.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
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: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:12:00 -0600

Thompson displayed his wealth knowledge by saying the following to All:
>> A couple of questions,
>>
>> 1) Was Win-OS/2 3.1 running full screen or as a window?
>>
>Win-OS/2 3.1 was running full screen.
>
>> 2) Was Windows 3.1 running standard or enhanced mode?
>>
>Windows 3.1 was running in enhanced mode.  I don't think it would be fair
>to run Windows 3.1 in standard mode.  If you did, Windows 3.1 would not
>have to support virtual memory or multiple DOS windows.  These features
>are supported in Win-OS/2 3.1 (by OS/2).
>

   Thanks for the info.

            Mike Hobbs


___
 * MR/2 1.3 NR * OS/2: Your brain.  Windows: Your brain on drugs.


 * Origin: (1:282/115)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: Brian is an idiot (was Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:31:02 GMT

In article <1auot8INNb27@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>
>In a previous article, brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) says:

>>>Don't be an idiot.  Just because you think that microsoft was justified
>>How nice!    ^^^^^

>
>Brian,
>
>Both of the choices you offer above state that microsoft abandoned OS/2.
....
>
>Now for my argument.
>
>Can someone claim that noone can say that microsoft abandoned os/2, 
>and then come right back an say that microsoft did abandon os/2?  
>Not without being an idiot.  
>
>Therefore, with respect to this thread Brian, you are an idiot.


Ack!  After seeing a stream of childish letters, I have had it up to here
with name-calling, nyah-nyah BS.  A few ribs thrown in an argument about
NT and OS/2 is to be expected, but when it degenerates into arguments for
the sole purpose of supporting name-calling, it's getting a little
ridiculous.  How about some witty, on-topic argumentation?

What does everyone say?

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:46:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct07.182409.29590@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.081922.27668@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>>
>>What he is quite clearly and correctly saying is that NT AND OS/2 2.0 are not
>>CONCURRENT multi user systems. NT allows you to set up profiles so that more
>>than one person can use ( IF THEY WAIT THEIR TURN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE BOY /GIRL )
>>this workstation with their files being protected
>>from the other users. ( Hardly multi-user in the traditional sense )
>>
>
>      Under Windows NT, processes run with a user ID and security
>priveleges.  The only thing necessary to allow it to be concurrent
>multiuser is a data channel - a telnetd type of program.  This is
>not difficult to write.
>
>				-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.

The original post asked wehter or not NT or OS/2 were multi-user. They did
did not ask if you could make them multi user which you can. OS/2 has this
NOW with OS2tTOYOU AND HPFS386. NT does not yet have a shipping or   
announced product that performs this. 



Martin Smith
msmith@netcom.com


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:05:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct14.183226.26511@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Oct13.183619.24862@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>>     The number of users at the console has _nothing_ whatsoever to
>>do with an OS being multiuser.  You are well aware of this, and I'm
>>not sure why you keep trying to twist the definition.
>
>The number of users at the console, when the console is the only way
>to 'log in', has _everything_ whatsoever to do with an OS being
>multiuser.  You are (or ought to be) well aware of this, and I'm not
>sure why you keep trying to twist the definition (other than so you
>can claim NT is 'multi-user' and OS/2 isn't.  NYA!).

     You should also be aware by now that Windows NT can support
logins from non-console users, if a data channel is provided.  The
security and multi-user functionality is all there (and it isn't
in OS/2 2.0).  MS has no plans to provide this data channel, as
far as I know - that's best left to a third party.

					-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: yiupun@leland.Stanford.EDU (Yiupun Michael Kwong)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 07:37:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct07.000904.6597@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.230519.21736@ms.uky.edu> sam@ms.uky.edu wrote:
>> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>
>> >> 
>> >> The only time preemptive multitasking is not the best method is when its not
>> >> the method used in the operating system you're trying to sell.
>> >IYHO of course.  Or are you deciding for the rest of us too?
>> 
>> Yes, in my opinion.  But other than being easier to write and code for (maybe),
>> what advantage does non-preemptive multitasking have?  I say none.
>
>Runs on smaller hardware (see the bottom part of my last post).  Allows your
>core system to be smaller.
>
>Those two things, plus the one you mentioned (which could be argued), make
>up a pretty strong argument that preemptive mt is not the best thing
>to be used everywhere.
>

I agree that in certain situations there may not be need necessarily for
a preemptive multitasking system.  However, I think it is wrong to
say that a non-preemptive multitasking system is necessarily larger than
a preemptive multitasking sytem.  One example is GeoWorks, which run happily
on a 8088 from what I heard, doesn't require tons of memory, has preemptive
multitasking and in my opinion a nicer looking shell than windows.
The only thing missing is the depth of Windows apps and DOS boxes.

>
>Anyway, I'd say you are correct.  Many of those things I mentioned probably
>won't requrire Windows NT, OS/2, UN*X, Amigados, VMS, etc.  So What.
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
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: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:19:07 GMT

In  <1992Oct8.114900.5696@gw.wmich.edu>  x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>
>         I might want tht things NT has to offer,  But I need to be
> able to run the software I currently have until I can afford to get
> NT apps (and while I wait for them ato arrive).  If NT can't give
> me good DOS and windows16 support then what is the compelling reason
> for most people to go to it?  Backwards cmopatibility certainly
> beats out being able to logon by a mile.
>

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?

Well, I really can't imagine that

Christoph
--
Internet: hochstae@allfiwib1.wiwi.uni-marburg.de
Bitnet  : HAMPE2 AT DMRHRZ11
Fido    : 2:243/660
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy