NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/unix/dosunde/235

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-04 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!noc.msc.net!uc.msc.edu!shamash!easyaspi.udev.cdc.com!gsa
From: [e-mail] (gary s anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: Re: Windows NT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:19:57 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (gary s anderson)
Lines: 64

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David R. Linn) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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.

Let's see....  The system was designed to run Windows applications, there
is no "tty concept", the kernel is a MACH-like design, the drivers have
an MS-DOS heritage (e.g. NDIS), and the API's (except for the POSIX one) are
generally Microsoft specified.  Where is the UNIX plagiarization???

NOTE - virtual memory, multi-tasking, multi-user, etc. are properties
in many operating systems besides UNIX....

|>
|> 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".

I think a problem with this thread is understanding the difference
between:  "single user" versus "one user at a time".

The multi-user elements of NT naturally accomodate multiple users
sharing a single system.  This, effectively, provides the opportunities
to define a security envelope around individual users.  NT also has
various resource sharing capabilities for files, printers, and other
objects.  These allow for concurrent system access by multiple users.
The issue is how many users can concurrently run "display" applications
(e.g. TELNET, X, etc.) on a single NT system.  The general answer is "one"
(with exceptions and opportunities).

The missing component in NT (today) is a parallel to the UNIX "tty"
(I include "pseudo tty" in this comment).  This allows the dumb terminals,
X-terminals, and terminal emulators to serve as useful nodes in a
UNIX domain.  The question people are raising is whether or not
Windows NT will ever support this concept (NOTE - I have lumped all
related questions into this point (e.g. If so, when?, If not, why?, etc.)).

It would be nice if someone from Microsoft would comment on this point
(i.e. someone who "knows" the answer)....

|>
|> 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.

Maybe you should look at NT and see if it solves the deficiencies
you have just listed.  If not, comment constructively on what is missing.


|> --
|> David R. Linn, System/Mail/News Manager    | INET: [e-mail]
|> Disclaimer: I speak only for myself    | Phone: [+1] 615-343-6164
|>       "Some do, some don't and that's the way of the world."

Disclaimer:  I have no affiliation with Microsoft.  I have read the
various documents and have been experimenting with the beta
version of NT.