HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne)
Subject: Re: NT not multiuser, then Unix is not a competing OS
Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:44:24 GMT


In <1993Jan20.000231.8992@microsoft.com> johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
>All of you make good points.  Now, what do you believe would
>be a sufficient solution?  Keep in mind that only one user will
>be allowed on the screen, so this will only be useful for
>a service (that therefore has no screen access) which is managing,
>for example, ascii terminal access thru multiplexed terminals.

A sufficient solution would be to allow a programmer to effectively do
what logon does: given a username/password (and any other implicit
information), return a SID (and any other implicit information) necessary
for full appropriate access to the Windows NT system. (Note I said
appropriate. Of course, display access permission is only given to a SID
that logged on via C-A-D.)

For instance, imagine a database server on a Windows NT system (Oracle,
Sybase, whatever). This database server may very well be a character
mode application for compatibility with all the other versions of
Oracle, Sybase, etc. Why shouldn't the DBA, who has a UNIX desktop, be
allowed to telnet to the Windows BOX and have the same (appropriate)
permissions as those given when doing a C-A-D logon?

Windows NT isn't Windows. Windows presupposes a graphical environment
and that's all. Windows NT gives us POSIX (character mode), OS/2
(character mode), DOS (character mode), and even Win32 (character
mode). There's a lot of people out here who use command lines just as
happily as File/Program Manager, or even prefer command lines. Why
should a user without a display be so obviously penalised (in terms of
permissions) when that user has a legitimate right to be logged on, and
there's a lot of useful programs that just don't need a graphical
interface? (DIR springs instantly to mind. A C compiler and a make file
follow.)

Fair enough, leave it to the third parties to write telnetd. But at least
document the way to do it. Excuses like "documenting this API facilitates
password guessing" are unacceptable and just plain silly.

>Is the ability to impersonate a user given name, domain, and
>    password enough, or do you need the ability to launch a new
>    program with a different access token from your own?

We need both. The first allows a server-type application to successfully and
securely impersonate a user, the second allows login to work.

>Should any process be allowed to perform these operations,
>    or should the Administrator have to explicitly allow a
>    particular application the capability?

Why shouldn't any process be able to do this? Given that a user has provided
a password, what's the problem? Bringing the Administrator in sounds like
MAC, and we're only interested in C2. ;-)

>Would an installable Service which provided a RPC hook be
>    acceptable?

More information required.

PJDM
--
Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
Digital Equipment Corporation   |
Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat
From: labwm@emory.edu (The Morse Code)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: NeXT and Class B...
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:52:33 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

According to an Engineer at NeXT who I asked about this issue,
the NeXT is Class B certified... So, definitely no problem with
it in the home.

William
Consult. / ITD :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Emory Law Student

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: chriswa@microsoft.com (Chris Waldron)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:27:40 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: na

In article <1j89tkINNs91@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>chriswa@microsoft.com (Chris Waldron) writes:
>>I'm sorry Sean, but the major focus of the FTC case is the OEM licensing of
>>DOS which the FTC is claiming prevents OEM from offering alternative OSes such
>>as DR DOS.  Apple's closed system prevents any kind of System 7 clone from
>>being offered on their system.  Apple both markets the hardware and the system
>>software.  In the DOS world OEM are clearly independent of the system software.
>
>Please explain what is to prevent someone from writing a System 7 clone.  Apple
>documents the hardware of the machines, and the interfaces to System 7.  What
>more do you need?
>
>There's not much point in writing a System 7 clone (System 7 is cheap...who
>needs a clone?), but there are third party operating systems available for
>the Macintosh: Minix and MacTen, for example.
>
>--Tim Smith

Clearly the point being made here is in reference to the FTC investigation of
Microsoft due to its relation to PC OEMs.  Clones of Macintosh system does not
abound in the marketplace due to the closed nature of their system.  System 7
clones to my knowledge do not abound.  In fact Apple sued two companies that
offered GUI interfaces for different hardware platforms.  Yet the FTC has not
looked into Apple's business practices.  My point which I've made in previous
postings is to contrast Apples practices with that of Microsoft's and ask if
the FTC is so concern with Microsoft why haven't they look at Apple's?  I 
believe that Apple has done more to restrain the market than anything that
Microsoft has done.

ChrisWa.     my_opinion != Microsoft.
.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: qbracken@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Quentin Bracken)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT shall slay UNIX
Date: 28 Jan 1993 15:25:42 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: tigger.cc.utexas.edu

First of all let me say that NT will not slay Unix.  As an avid Unix
user, I know that it has several advantages that no operating system
can overcome.  But, Windows NT also has many advantages that should
make it appealing to other Unix users.

According to Inside Windows NT by Helen Cuseter from Microsoft Press,
Windows NT is a multi-user operating system.  This means many people
can log onto one single machine at once.  Every user will have an
account, and the security system will make sure that each user does
not interfere with any other user.

It is also true that Windows NT does have an excellent security
system.  I suspect that it will be some time before a virus that
can cause real harm will appear on the platform.  For example, no
process is ever allowed to actually access any part of the disk
without passing through the security system first.

It is true that binaries are not portable from a RISC 6000 processor
to a 80386.  But the code is and thanks to the HAL, Hardware Abstraction
Layer, there should be very little or no change in order to recompile
code for a different processor.


--
Troi:   "Captain, he's hiding something..." 

Picard: "Of course he is you stupid cow!  Do something useful
         and stop taking up space!"

Quentin Bracken
qbracken@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:24:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.173233.8042@Celestial.COM> bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) writes:
>
>John Mashey of MIPS (now Silicon Graphics I believe) pointed out
>the huge appetites GUIs have for RAM and processor power.  How
>much RAM do you need for a 1280x1024 32K color display?  How many
>images do you want to keep in memory to speed up graphics refresh?
>
>My last mainframe computer was a Burrough B-3700 that supported
>15 users simultaneously and would run circles around the then
>current crop of IBM 370s in it's price range.  It only had 200KB
>(that's right 200 Kilobytes) of memory.  Most COBOL programs took
>15KB of RAM only because the SORT verb required that much stack.
>One of the largest programs to run (about 55KB) on this system was
>a simulation of the LHA amphibious assault ship.   Programs
>expand to fill the memory available.

In many senses, you are absolutely right.  Software has become bloated.  But
"programmer laziness" is not the only reason for this.  The _requirements_
of the application has usually grown much greater.  Try doing 3D Cad with
perspective and hidden line removal on a 200KB B-3700... Try doing ray
tracing, rendering.  Try playing animation...

The last is probably a major reason why RAM requirements will become greater.
As multimedia grows, so will the need for fast access to huge data store.
If hard disks become faster (as they promise to be), RAM could really
be virtual RAM... but nonetheless, _I_ could quite easily make use of
1GB of fast storage.

I, therefore, believe that there may come a time when people bump up
against the 4GB limit... (and curse intel for their brain-dead architecture :) )

>
>Bill
>-- 

Joe


Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3992 comp.os.os2.advocacy:12692
From: person@plains.NoDak.edu (Brett Person)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win NT's "bad looks"
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:16:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: ns1.C1C0rp.G9I
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

One word -- d SOM. O.K. so that's an acronym.  Will NT give me the power of SOM?
With SOM I can change the fabric of the WP shell.  Create my own menus,
define new functions.  Hell, I can add a kitchen sink if I want  to. 

As for NT being better than Unix. Rumor has it that a future version of OS/2
will HAVE unix as one of it's command prompts choices. 
-- 
Brett Person
Guest Account	
North Dakota State University
person@plains.nodak.edu || person@plains.bitnet
I don't do Windows, but OS/2 does.
From: cfortier@genghis.news (Chris Fortier)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT shall slay UNIX
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:43:41 GMT
Organization: Borland International, Inc.

In article <1k73h1INN83o@emx.cc.utexas.edu> ifbb657@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:

   I am interested in hearing debate about UNIX vs NT (When it comes out.).

   NT has one quality that UNIX has:  An innate resistance to viruses.
   Because of the protected mode execution of apps, one app cannot infect
   another unless you are running as the Administrator.  Because of this,
   most virii will be hard to spread.  I do not know about boot sector
   viruses, though.


This is not necessarily true.  Someone will surely be able to find the
holes in NT, and exploit them, spreading viruses.  It is harder, but it
is not impossible.


   Compared to Unix, NT is relatively easy to install and use, is built for
   portability, and binaries on one platform *WILL* work for another w/o
   recompiling.  NT also is not built on a rickety 20 year old platform of
   hacks and patches like UNIX.

NT binaries are inherently machine specific.  You will not be able to take a
MIPS EXE and run it on the Intel architecture.  If programmers adhere to the
Win32 APIs, however, you are guaranteed source level portability.
You will need to simly recompile the source.


   UNIX is a TRUE multiple user OS though, while NT can only have one
   user on at a time.

   Please correct if there are any inaccuracies in my statements.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: R12997@waccvm.corp.mot.com (Rick Heider)
Subject: Re: 0 Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Organization: Motorola
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:45:33 MST

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
In article <1j1msiINN4k8@cae.cad.gatech.edu> chris@cad.gatech.edu (Chris McClell
>I believe the 80386/486 have a 4gb:4gb address range when using
>segments.  This gives the user about 64 Terabytes or so, maybe
>less.  However, I think the hard thing is managing the segments,
>espeically when swapping, or trying to allow congruent access
>across such segments, such as a case when a user's data variable
>doesn't fall in one segment, but is split.  If you want to deny
>splits by only allowing up to one segment's worth of memory
>to be addressed, that can still cramp someone somewhere.
>
>Even though the hardware can do it, that doesn't mean its easy.
>Thats why I think OS2 went with the flat memory model (0:4gb
>[guess you could look at it as this: segment 0, offset
>of up to 4gb].

>>This may be part of it.  The other part:  really, who the *hell*
>>needs 4 Gb of memory for a program?  No one is going to need 4Gb
>>of memory anytime soon, and if they do, they won't be running on
>>a PC.


>>d 64 terabytes?!  That's *7* orders of magnitude above today.
>>'re looking at the end of the 21st century here.

>> other words, don't worry about it.  :)

Yes, but let's remember the difference between virtual memory which
is effectively the address space of the machine, and physical
memory which is the space one has to run programs.  This in effect,
provides multitasking, such as it is in Windows.
Rick Heider
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Date: 21 Jan 1993 15:12:26 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan20.194918.28322@mcs.anl.gov> Dan.Ciarlette@anl.gov  
(Dan Ciarlette) writes:
> In article 1jjsrjINNig5@transfer.stratus.com,  
jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
> >I think a gigabyte would be USELESS for all but a few people.
> >There's a cutoff point (probably somewhere around 16-32 M), above
> >which extra memory does nothing for the vast majority of the  
users.
> This sounds like what a lot of CPM-80 poeple said when the  
PC/MS-DOS people 
> started adding 128K to their machines.  The future holds many  
unknowns for us and
> one of these unknowns is how much memory we need on our PCs in 6  
months.
> 

Yes, that's an unknown. I have 4 Meg on my PC. In 6 months, I may
need 8 Meg.  I could even need 16 Meg.   I no way, no how will
need a couple of Gigabytes.

You are missing the orders of magnitude you're talking about. In
your example, you talk about people who couldn't conceive others
needing twice as much memory. But going up to 2 Gigabytes, say,
is 1000 times more than many office user have now, and 
500 times more than the typical PC is now sold with.  

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:53:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.042455.17686@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.173233.8042@Celestial.COM> bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) writes:
>>
>>current crop of IBM 370s in it's price range.  It only had 200KB
>>(that's right 200 Kilobytes) of memory.  Most COBOL programs took
>>15KB of RAM only because the SORT verb required that much stack.
>>One of the largest programs to run (about 55KB) on this system was
>>a simulation of the LHA amphibious assault ship.   Programs
>>expand to fill the memory available.
>
>In many senses, you are absolutely right.  Software has become bloated.  But
>"programmer laziness" is not the only reason for this.  The _requirements_


	I wouldn't categorically rule it out, either.  I'm sure it plays a part.
	(Consider the bloat of Wordperfect when comparing the DOS and 
	Windows 5.1 versions, or Word, or..)


>of the application has usually grown much greater.  Try doing 3D Cad with
>perspective and hidden line removal on a 200KB B-3700... Try doing ray
>tracing, rendering.  Try playing animation...
>
>The last is probably a major reason why RAM requirements will become greater.
>As multimedia grows, so will the need for fast access to huge data store.
>If hard disks become faster (as they promise to be), RAM could really
>be virtual RAM... but nonetheless, _I_ could quite easily make use of
>1GB of fast storage.


	Animation?  Nah.  Medical imaging, though.  Cartography, 
	weather map imaging (in fact, anything involving maps--
	the amount of data is *immense*).  

	Animation really doesn't have much of a necessity-drive
	behind it.  The small number of applications that do have a
	real need for real time animation (remember: you don't need 
	fast animation to produce Terminator II things, you just
	need a targa card and a frame-by-frame VCR) are filled by
	specialty companies like SGI (and, phew, when you're in 
	a niche category things _cost_.  What's the Elan cost, $30k?).

>I, therefore, believe that there may come a time when people bump up
>against the 4GB limit... (and curse intel for their brain-dead architecture :) )


	People are bumping against it today.  The price of a 2 gig 
	HD is $2800.  I remember when the cost difference on a Z100
	was almost $1000 between a floppy-only (5.25" 360k, 1 drive)
	machine and a machine with a 10mb internal (full height, although
	I guess these days you'd really call it double height..) harddisk.

	And--lo, if you're in any of the fields above, you're hitting it
	in a lot more ways than just storage.  A single image, what, 
	a few hundred megs?  More?  

	64 bits, now.  That should last a few years.

	:-)


-- 
Attempts to lessen the burden of proof in rape | Why not put me in your kill
trials are violent assaults on civil rights.   | file?  add: "/: rsrodger/h :j"
  =====boycott=is=coercion=is=censorship=is=closed minded=is=cowardice=====
	Pyramid schemes are illegal unless you're the US government.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne)
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:29:59 GMT


In article <1jmegqINNhmg@transfer.stratus.com>, jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
>You are missing the orders of magnitude you're talking about. In
>your example, you talk about people who couldn't conceive others
>needing twice as much memory. But going up to 2 Gigabytes, say,
>is 1000 times more than many office user have now, and 
>500 times more than the typical PC is now sold with.  

Once upon a time there was CP/M. 64KB, maybe 128KB, was good. People used
simple word prcoessors like Wordstar. (Deleting characters on screen!)

Then there was DOS. 128KB, maybe 256KB, was good. People used simple
word processors like MS Word. (Bolding and underlining on screen!)

Now there's Windows or OS/2. 4MB, maybe 8MB is good. People use simple word
processors like Word for Windows. (Pictures and charts on screen!)

Soon there'll be Windows NT. 16MB, maybe 32MB or 128 MB will be good. People
will use simple word processors like MultiMedia Word from Industrial Light
and Magic. (Sound and Video on screen!)

Evetually there'll be Super OS. A few GB will be good. People will use
simple word processors such as HoloWord from MultiD Corp. (3D VR presentations
on screen!)

Memory might be scaling up logarithmically, but so are the uses that computers
are being put to. The first three steps took (very roughly) about the same
amount of time. I can't see the last happening in the same time frame, but
I'd bet on seeing the day when you and I are wishing that we had more than
a lousy GB in our desktops, or HDTVs, or...

>Jim Mann            
>Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

PJDM
--
Peter Mayne                     | My statements, not Digital's.
Digital Equipment Corporation   |
Canberra, ACT, Australia        | "AXP!": Bill the Cat
From: ST402248@brownvm.brown.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: comp.os.nt
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:27:32 GMT
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
X-News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

In article <27JAN93.10698014.0174@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA>, U0XH <U0XH@UNB.CA> said:
>
>Sign me up!  I love the idea of COMP.OS.NT, count this as a yes vote.
>
> Chris

I hate the idea.  The name of the product is Windows NT 3.1 (Why
a release 1.0 product is given a 3.1 designation is pure marketing Bull).
Anyway, where would you look for the newsgroup for Windows NT?  How
about comp.os.windows.nt?  What a brilliant idea!  Saying that this
relates it to much to the DOS product is a stupid argument since its
primary API is very related to the DOS product.  The designation
comp.os.nt is misleading.

                           -- Scott.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jonka@microsoft.com (Jonathan Kagle)
Subject: 32-bit memory space (was: Re: The sin of MicroSoft)
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:02:55 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

There's been a lot of discussion (really flamage) about NT being limited by
having a 32-bit RAM address space. Certainly, at some undetermined time in the 
future, this limitation will begin to be very important, especially on multi-
processor machines.

Although the current implementation of NT has a 32-bit memory (NOT file system,
BTW) architecture, it is designed to be upgraded to run with larger address
spaces. Just like Unix was able to migrate from 12-bit to 32-bit architectures,
NT is able to grow to meet future addressing needs.

MS-DOS is not able to easily expand to address more than 1M (20 bits) of 
memory for several resons, including the lack of a universal memory allocation
system, the heavy use of nonportable assembly-language that assumes 64K 
segments and 16-bit pointers, and the nearly universal practice of writing
directly to hardware memory addresses. 

None of these will affect properly-written, portable (no assembly language, 
proper use of types, etc.) NT code. Moving from 32-bit to 64-bit shouldn't
be more difficult than moving from Intel to MIPS or Alpha is now.

       -Jonathan

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a disclaimer. ThIS is A D%^#@ClamEr on DrUGS!!!  Any questions?
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3981 comp.os.os2.advocacy:12644
From: kevinc@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sin et al
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:47:42 GMT
Followup-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy

discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:

>I did not say that people do not NEED multitasking: I said that PEOPLE 
>didn't [conciously] multitask.  Before a GUI allowed an intuitive interface
>to do so, multitasking was complicated on a PC; constantly switching
>entire screens, losing track about what was actually running (ps -x, anyone?),
>having poor or nonexistent methods to transfer data from one application
>to another...

Now wait a moment Joe. I certainly consciously attempted to multitask
using DOS on a PC since PC's came out. I was never very happy with only
doing one thing at a time. I was always very frustrated. When Ms
announced Windows 3.0 and that it could multitask I was really
thrilled. I ran out and bought a copy. I very quickly became very
frustrated again because the manner in which Ms implemented
multitasking in windows 3.0 was incredibly bad - FOR ME! When IBM came
out with OS/2 2.0 and said that it had multitasking I didn't run out
and get it (actually I won it at a computer show). However, since I had
it, I installed it tried to do my kind of multitasking. I was very
pleasantly surprised that I could actually do more than one thing at a
time when I wanted to do my tasks.

For me, IBM's implementation of multitasking was what won my loyalty. I
have some problems with MS becasue thier version didn't solve my
problem. Now they claim that their new product Windows NT 1.0 (I don't
care what the marketing droids want to call it - it's still the first
release of a new product, from my perspective) is so much better.
Unfortunately, once burned twice shy!

Networking is my other burning desire. But I had that with DOS and
Windows and OS/2. I have trouble seeing how NT is going to make my life
better. 

Kevin
--
Kevin "autark" Crocker (Athabasca University)
kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA  -or-  risk@cs.AthabascaU.CA
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy