home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!unixg.ubc.ca!ochealth
- From: ochealth@unixg.ubc.ca (ochealth)
- Subject: Re: OS/2 Needs a Supervisor mode!
- Message-ID: <1992Aug16.043823.18033@unixg.ubc.ca>
- Sender: news@unixg.ubc.ca (Usenet News Maintenance)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca
- Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
- References: <1992Aug15.230755.14630@chpc.utexas.edu> <1992Aug16.001819.14010@unixg.ubc.ca> <mcdonald.211@aries.scs.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 04:38:23 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <mcdonald.211@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:
- >In article <1992Aug16.001819.14010@unixg.ubc.ca> ochealth@unixg.ubc.ca (ochealth) writes:
- >
- >
- >>Well, some people have complained about OS/2 not having multiuser capabilities
- >>out of the box, but I think IBM should include a "Supervisor" or "root"
- >>mode, and a "User" mode as a bare minimum. A "restricted" mode would also
- >>be nice.
- >
- >
- >Don't ask to saddle OS/2 with overhead that lots of people don't care about.
- >
-
- People don't care about viruses or trojan horse programs? Or just plain poorly
- written programs trashing some config file, and crippling the system. I see.
- Perhaps you should go back to DOS. I'm not asking for full fledged multiuser
- support (although I wouldnt mind). OS/2 already has a number of file locking
- procedures which could be *slightly* expanded to make the system a lot more
- protected. Try reading the whole article again, instead of a reflex follow-up
- article.
-
- >Doug McDonald
-
-
- --
- ______________________________________________________________________________
- jpm: ochealth@unixg.ubc.ca
- Happily using OS/2 2.0 because MS Windows isNT ___
- Insert VapourFeature ^^^
-