home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
- Path: sparky!uunet!vuse.vanderbilt.edu!drl
- From: drl@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (David R. Linn)
- Subject: Re: Windows NT
- Message-ID: <C0C2Aw.K9@vuse.vanderbilt.edu>
- Sender: news@vuse.vanderbilt.edu
- Nntp-Posting-Host: jester
- Organization: Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN, USA
- References: <C03I3E.10C@world.std.com> <C04x4q.17E@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> <1993Jan03.203640.24282@Celestial.COM>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 14:16:08 GMT
- Lines: 22
-
- In article <1993Jan03.203640.24282@Celestial.COM> ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:
- >A Micorsoft "evangalist" (sp?) that gave a talk at one of our meeting
- >(Unix user group) stated that NT would be marketed first in the server
- >market, but was indeed capable of multi-user. That feature would be
- >marketed 9 months to a year after introduction. But, what the hell, its
- >just a rewrite of UNIX so they won't have to pay UNIX royalties, so why
- >shouldn't it be multi-user.
-
- Including multiple users costs effort and if NT is positioned as a
- single-user, mulit-tasking system, why would MS expend that effort?
- Supporting multiple users requires the concept of multiple users be a
- part of the system design from the word "Go".
-
- To me, the lack of multiple users is a serious deficiency. In fact,
- it seems to me that lack of a distinction between the system privilege
- level, the super-user privilege level, and the regular user privilege
- level is a significant factor in the propagation of viruses in the
- personal computer world.
- --
- David R. Linn, System/Mail/News Manager | INET: drl@vuse.vanderbilt.edu
- Disclaimer: I speak only for myself | Phone: [+1] 615-343-6164
- "Some do, some don't and that's the way of the world."
-