HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Tim.Glauert@f1.n100.z60.wlink.nl (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: MS's misconduct!
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:36:17 -0100

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: ekl@fics.uucp
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Organization: Kvam data as
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 04:44:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.215342.4413@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.222025.5623@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>Right you are. We can develop "need little shareware toys", whereas the
>poor guys owning C-Set/2 CSD14 can't. Not to talk about the missing
>C++.

I can develop and sell commercial software for os/2 2.0 today. I can do
the same for Windows NT, although my customer base is quite small...
The necessary tools are available on both platforms.

As for C++ -- I think there are more c++ compiler for os/2 2.0 than
for Windows NT. I can think of 4 readily available, and 2 that are
in beta. For Windows NT, we have one which is available, but not yet
in beta, and one or two commerical that I have heard of.

>Christoph
>-- 
>Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
>BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
>Fido: 2:243/660

Eirik
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 08 Oct 92 22:38:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct8.002246.16241@grebyn.com> richk@grebyn.com wrote:
> In article <1992Oct07.101657.16483@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) 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.
> >
> >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.
> 
> If you've been working at Microsoft for all your career, I guess it's
> possible you really have never seen a thing which the industry
> considers a multi-user computer.  Yes, for five users, it has five
> mice, five keyboards, and five screens.  They're terminals.

I didn't say five terminals, I said 5 mice, 5 screens, etc.  I may
have 5 serial ports on my machine, that allows me to hook up 5 terminals,
fine.  Doesn't make a lot of sense to have 5 keyboard ports on the back
of my machine.

I have a question, though.  Do I have to have many terminals to make an
operating system multi user.  Well, If I have a UNIX box, and I remove all
but the console, then it's no longer multi user, but the logic that's
been going on around here.


.  

> 
> So you might say that you don't see a useful distinction between a
> terminal connected via serial port, and another PC with a network
> connection.  The distinction is price, terminals are much cheaper than
> a suitable PC would be, and they're far easier to administer and
> maintain.

Yes, so what.  You can hook a terminal up to any computer with a serial
port.  Heck, there will probably be a number of public domain terminal
drivers for NT when it's released, if not some commercial one.  So....

> 
> >THE SCREEN DEVICE OF NT ONLY ALLOWS ONE USER TO HAVE OWNERSHIP OF IT.
> 
> Geez, we know this.  That's why we've been saying that for practical
> purposes, NT is single-user.

Most Unix boxes I've seen are the same unless they are running X.  You
have only one console screen.  Are these boxes single user??

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:35:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.183821.24942@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>>     I don't believe that the quote you cite above is correct.
>>>The key word in there is "only" - it implies that anything but
>>>those top 100 apps will not run.  This is clearly not the case.
>>
>>Wrong.  You are the one inferring that support == run.  Support and 
>>run mean two different things.  Only the top 100 dos and windows apps
>>will be supported.  That means that many non-top 100 apps will have
>>a good probability of running, BUT if they don't, you are SOL.  MS doesn't
>>support your app.
>
>     Your interpretation may be valid - the announcement could
>certainly be read that way.  I'll check into it and see if I can
>get a clarification on the DOS support policy for Windows NT.
>
>				-Phil

I would be interested in that.  It would be better if we knew  what MS's
policy is on unsupported  apps, if they have made a statement.  Without
a statement, I would be inclined to think that MS would work to a point,
but no serious expenditure, other than trying to help you via phone for
example, would be made.

One of the reasons I think this is so, is that naughty apps would usually
require making holes in the design of NT in order to get them to run.

Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.01 Beta
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:15:10 GMT

In <1992Oct10.233432.27395@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>I doubt seriously that OS/2 1.X's main problem was poor DOS support.

Well, all I can tell you is what I saw, Brian.  With the exception of
people who lived in a totally IBM shop, everyone I knew of who even
considered buying OS/2 declined to buy it for one primary reason --
the incompatible DOS-compatibility box.  Nobody was going to buy a new
OS just so they could go out and replace all the applications that
they were pretty satisfied using.

NT can expect the same sorts of problems.  There are still people out
there who haven't moved to Windows yet, and there are even more people
who are at least somewhat annoyed at having to replace all their
Windows applications every time Microsoft comes out with the next
release.  NT is going to have to live all that down in order to get
any real penetration.

-- 
"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.
From: sward+@CMU.EDU (David Reeve Sward)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling and the price of NT
Date: 15 Oct 92 05:57:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.gerLXBW00UzxM1gGNV
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.os2.advocacy: 14-Oct-92 Re: Bundling and
the price .. by Hugh Whalen@UNB.CA 
> in their pricing decision. ONE OF THE THINGS THEY SHOULD NOT CONSIDER
> ACCORDING TO CURRENT ACCOUNTING (BUSINESS?) THEORY IS THE SUNK
> COSTS.

Economic theory; I took economics last semester.  You are correct, the
sunk (fixed) costs should **NOT** be taken into account when determining
the price.  If you (the reader) don't agree with this, TAKE AN ECONOMICS
COURSE.  If you already *have* taken econ, then you didn't learn a thing
about the economics of a business.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wu@mdd.comm.mot.com (Philip Wu)
Subject: Re: Unprofessional Letter from IBM.
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:32:09 GMT

In <1992Oct6.235117.27484@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>They don't tell you how to get the CD-ROM or why you're getting
>this note.

>They don't say what/who "Soyring" is (though of course I know).

>The paragraphs seem like they were cut out of several documents and
>pasted together.

>Supposedly attendees of the Developer's Conference will get a CD containing
>among other things, Borland's Object Vision, but I see no mention of it.
>Supposedly this was contained in the fee of the conference... but apparently
>I'll need to buy it.

>Apparently after December 15, 1992 I cannot use the 26 productivity
>tools written by IBM employees.

Well, apparently this is IBM's response to Microsoft's $69 NT Beta offer.
Anybody can join the DAP on Compuserve for free and then order the
CD for $15!!  This also includes all the compilers etc, etc.

Pretty good deal, if I had a CDROM.

Phil
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:40:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Oct8.174049.15330
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Oct6.125537.14920@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) 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 )

>NT does allow concurrent multi-user systems.

So does MS-DOS and my 'Vette, but they have very little to DO with
them.  Certainly neither of them is a concurrent multi-user system,
and it is my understanding (because you have to be seated at the
console to use it) that Windows/NT is not one, either.

-- 
"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.
From: ASI509@DJUKFA11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.x will loose its battle against NT if .....
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:38:37 GMT
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

In article <1992Oct9.003603.1793@news.Hawaii.Edu>, lkan@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu
(Linus Kan) says:
>I'm sure Microsoft is reading the OS/2 newsgroups and get user
>evaluations and problems plus tips and ideas so that they could
>improve their NT code.  And since NT and OS/2 are similar in code,
>Microsoft is learning its mistakes from the release of OS/2 2.0
>--us OS/2 users did all the test Microsoft needed for the NT kernel.
>I'm sure the first release of NT would have less BUGS than OS/2 2.0.
>I've had my share of bugs with OS/2!
>
Where can I get this magic debugger? Must be better than the version of CV they
sell. Lets  you debug your own code by testing someone else`s code. Great.

Why in heaven do they tell us NT has a completely different architecture from
OS/2 if I now hear it`s so similar that they can debug their code by reading
bug reports from OS/2 users?

>I feel that Windows NT would sell for below $100--maybe at a lost
>but what does Microsoft have to loose--they've got profits from
>its other popular applications.  Anyone suspected that Microsoft
>would sell NT for $69 to developers?...well they did!
>
As I hear that $69 deal is not even beta code. I bet they even employ people
at MS to test their code. But perhaps they will give away the final product
for free.

>Hey--I have OS/2 2.0 on my system...won't be there long though.
>If I do switch to Windows NT, I'll opt for a better desktop manager
>...maybe a 32-bit Norton Desktop (and hopefully it'll be a radical
>change from the Windows 3.x version--ie. a Norton Desktop similar to
>the Workplace Shell).
>
Yeah, at least here in Germany Norton Desktop sells for about twice the price
of Win 3.1. So we have something in between zero times 3 and $500 times 3 for
your system.

What can we conclude from your posting ? NT is basically the same as OS/2 but
you have to buy the UI from a third party for a total of approx. twice the
price of OS/2. And we have to wait for it.

Even I hope the situation is not as bad for NT as you descibe.

Michael Bode.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Who understands IBM any more?
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:57:24 GMT

In article <3120@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
> 
> What I absolutely DON'T understand is IBM. I have to admit somewhere
> sometimes I see a small add or some small article but even after more
> than 6 months of release most press is still negative. That is, if OS/2
> is mentioned at all in the many NT oriented articles. I have seen
> some predictions saying in 1995 it will be 24% OS/2 vs 10% NT but I
> have also seen predicions which even don't mention OS/2. Also, besides
> perhaps ObjectVision, I have not seen many adds for mature OS/2 apps.
> I DID see a lot of companies comitment to NT, hardware vendors, software
> vendors etc. Of cource the same applies for OS/2 

People are committing to Windows because it is the market leader right now. I
spoke to a guy the other day who said that if Windows was the Devil and OS/2
was GOD....he would back the Devil because of his dominant position in the
market.
 
In this guy's mind, merit didn't enter it. I disagree, of course, but there
are enough of his sort around - especially in the media - to make NT's
(eventual) arrival appear second only to the coming of Christ. 
 
Of the four of us in the discussion, this guy was the only one who actually
said he didn't like OS/2. The rest of us either already use it - or are
planning on trying it out (having seen it). 
 
After a few minutes, he revealed that he had never laid eyes on OS/2. 
 
We all had a good laugh about that! No wonder he doesn't like it!
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 8 Oct 1992 15:02:18 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Oct07.185046.532@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>      MS's official word is all that the rest of us have to go on - 
>anything else is idle speculation, without supporting evidence.

Only if you don't believe in evaluating a company's actions as well as its
words. MS's actions speak louder, by far, than their words, and their actions
all say one thing: "FUD!"

>     I agree - it is _possible_ that the real purpose of the SDK
>release was to sow FUD.  It is also possible that the real purpose
>of the SDK release was to provide things for people to put their
>drinks on.  Neither is proven, and, in my opinion, neither is likely.

Hey...if someone wants a $69 coaster, that's their business!...though
personally, I'd prefer using a Rush CD; it has no other redeeming social
value. :-) (Rush lovers' flames via email, please.)

MS's actions are the supporting evidence for my contention. You may choose to
interpret them differently through your MS-colored glasses, but that won't
change how they appear to me.

>     Or perhaps they're just being nice to those people developing for
>Windows NT?  I'm not as quick to see a conspiracy here - it seems like
>the simplest explanation is most often correct.

Just like they were nice to folks who believed them the last time they said
that a product was strategic: they charged those folks $2600, and then
abandoned them completely.

Excuse me if I'm skeptical the second time around. "Fool me once, shame on
you; fool me twice, shame on me."

>>Is _any_ qualification being done on folks who call up and order the SDK/beta?
>>Even as little as a description of the product they're working on?
>      Why should there be?

To lend the idea that this is a developer's release some credibility, perhaps?
I had to tell IBM about the project I'm doing to get on the list for their
DAP...at least they're honest.

>      Too lazy to gather evidence for your own arguments?  Tsk tsk...

No. I'm not willing to waste $69 to bolster an argument on the net.
-- 
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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM, Microsoft, and OS/2 -- a history.
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:14:49 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

In article <1992Oct9.015950.14719@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>
>>Cannavino:  We intend to deliver a 32-bit version of OS/2 in 1990.
>>In the meantime, we have made a software development kit available.
>>It contains early OS/2 2.0 system code, an assembler and C compiler,
>>and some programming tools.  Developers who buy it will also receive
>>a ship-level copy of OS/2 2.0 at general availability.
>>
>>Also,
>>
>>Developer:  What do you think are the relative market sizes for the two
>>versions of OS/2 [16-bit and 32-bit versions]?
>>
>>Cannavino:  OS/2 1.2 will continue to have a role as an entry level
>>OS/2 system.  Users needing a more powerful operating environment
>>should use OS/2 2.0.
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>It sure sounds to me like David's right - IBM was behind 32-bit OS/2
>>long before the split.
>
>Then explain why there was an OS/2 1.3?  OS/2 1.3 is where the point
>of contention between MS and IBM was.  The quote you're showing is
>about OS/2 1.2.  Clearly IBM must have changed direction somewhere,
>as shortly they would be developing an OS/2 1.3 independent of
>Microsoft.

You fail to address the point, Brian, regardless of whether there was
an OS/2 1.3.  What do you say about this above citation being in direct
conflict with your earlier statements?

As for 1.3, I was under the impression that 1.2 was too buggy (I've never
used it, so I wouldn't know), that a 1.3 was needed soon after to keep
OS/2 a viable platform.

Ted 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:34:28 GMT

In <1992Oct08.092757.16811@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>> 
>> Networking packages aren't like stripped-down versions of common software.
>> Including full-function TCP/IP networking in NT is like including
>> Weird...er...Word for Windows: nobody in their right mind would try to
>> compete. Why should FTP Software develop an NT version of PC/TCP, when you're
>> throwing in an equivalent package with the OS (and cranking up the price to
>> cover it)?

>Why should DR develop another DOS when MS DOS covers that base?

Not quite the same thing, Pete.  What he's talking about is someone
writing something that you would need NT to run, when NT already
includes a full-blown version of that functionality.  Your example is
more along the lines of someone producing a better NT (including
networking, plus a bunch of things that NT won't do).  His point is
valid.  How many copies of a package to do X am I likely to be able to
sell if the ability to do X is already built into the thing my package
requires in order to run?

-- 
"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.