UNIX login when telnet Microsoft.com
Brian Chase
: David Rice (da...@rogue.com) wrote:
: : Why do I get a UNIX system V login prompt when I telnet to Microsoft?
: >clickety< >click< >click<
: --------------------------------
: Trying 131.107.1.3...
: Connected to microsoft.com.
: Escape character is '^]'.
: System V UNIX (netmail)
: login:
: --------------------------------
I know it's generally considered bad to follow up to your own posts but
it seemed appropriate in this case...
----------------------------------------------------------
Trying 131.107.1.2...
Connected to 131.107.1.2.
Escape character is '^]'.
UNIX System V Release 3.2 (ingate.microsoft.com) (ttyp0)
login:
----------------------------------------------------------
That's two eggs in the collective (we are Borg) face of MS. Those people at
Microsoft, they're just so SiLLy.
No excuses either, if NT is such a hot-cool-spiffy-OS then certainly it could
perform the friggin trivial tasks of a mail machine and what appears to be
some "mystic UNIX portal" into the realms of MS. I mean if Microsoft itself
can't trust NT's security on the internet then why the hell should we?
And IF NT's security is considered questionable by Microsoft itself, what
else do the people inside consider questionable about NT?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Chase -VoodooMagick-C-Hacker "I run NT on a machine configured for NT
cha...@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (486, 32M of memory, 1G hard drive space)
933...@itdsrv1.ul.ie and it runs fine." -- Jemearl Smith at MS
Thomas F Lee
> a lot of stuff about MS running Unix.
Brian,
As I understand it, MS are upgrading all their servers to be NTAS. If
you were to look at their host file (I'll happily send you part of one)
you would find that it has litteraly hundreds of NT servers. Frankly,
that says lots more than whether their gate machine is Unix. At this
point in time, if I were them, I'd be running Unix as my gateway
onto the internet rather than NT, particularly for SMTP mail. Once
Touchdown/EMS is released, you may see this change...
As a rather better example of NT running, try ftp-ing into
gowinnt.microsoft.com - this is an NT box which has been running since
NT was released. According to MS, this server has worked continuously
for months only going down for upgrades. It's been up every time
I've logged in. There are also supposed to have been no security
breaches.
So what's the problem...
Thomas
--
+-----------------+---------------------------+
! Thomas F Lee ! Voice: 0628 850 077 !
! t...@psp.co.uk ! Fax : 0628 850 143 !
+-----------------+---------------------------+
Brian Chase
: In article <CpuD0...@ul.ie> 933...@ul.ie "Brian Chase" writes:
: > a lot of stuff about MS running Unix.
: As I understand it, MS are upgrading all their servers to be NTAS.
[snip]
: point in time, if I were them, I'd be running Unix as my gateway
: onto the internet rather than NT, particularly for SMTP mail. Once
: Touchdown/EMS is released, you may see this change...
What's Touchdown/EMS? Just curious. Better mail me on that one to save
bandwidth and complaints from others though. One's got to keep up with these
things you know.
: As a rather better example of NT running, try ftp-ing into
: gowinnt.microsoft.com - this is an NT box which has been running since
: NT was released.
Checked it out. Seems pretty nice for an ftp server admittedly. I'll even
give it an 8 out of 10 for initial appearances and responsiveness. Questions
for the MS people out there though: How many simultaneous ftp sessions does
ftp.microsoft.com support (really) and on what hardware?
: So what's the problem...
I am the Anti-Gates (or one of them), and tend to be volatile and hostile
in humor towards anything remotely MS-ish. Don't take it personal or anything.
I wasted a good chunk of my computer-aware life juggling and dealing with all
the quirks of MS-DOS, Windows3.1 and things that run under those environments
and have become eternally embittered towards them.
-brian.
Dave Hart
comp. unix.advocacy
Brain Cheese (933...@ul.ie) wrote:
: UNIX System V Release 3.2 (ingate.microsoft.com) (ttyp0)
: login:
: ----------------------------------------------------------
: That's two eggs in the collective (we are Borg) face of MS. Those people at
: Microsoft, they're just so SiLLy.
: No excuses either, if NT is such a hot-cool-spiffy-OS then certainly it could
: perform the friggin trivial tasks of a mail machine and what appears to be
: some "mystic UNIX portal" into the realms of MS. I mean if Microsoft itself
: can't trust NT's security on the internet then why the hell should we?
: And IF NT's security is considered questionable by Microsoft itself, what
: else do the people inside consider questionable about NT?
Oh my god. Here I thought Microsoft was serious about NT. Thank you for
revealing their scam to rely on Unix to run their business, while trying
to fool the rest of the world into using Windows NT, which obviously isn't
up to the "friggin trivial tasks" of a mail machine.
[Getting off my sarcasm...]
Two points in Microsoft's defense:
1) I've read that Microsoft's internet mail server sends and receives
100,000 messages every day, or about 6 for every employee. That's not
trivial.
2) Microsoft doesn't sell a product capable of doing that, and they don't
claim that they do. It doesn't surprise me at all that they would keep
running their ancient solution until their NT-based Enterprise Messaging
Server arrives.
--- dave...@eskimo.com - Take it to alt.unix.lovers, please.
Dave Hart
: I am the Anti-Gates (or one of them), and tend to be volatile and hostile
: in humor towards anything remotely MS-ish. Don't take it personal or
: anything. I wasted a good chunk of my computer-aware life juggling and
: dealing with all the quirks of MS-DOS, Windows3.1 and things that run
: under those environments and have become eternally embittered towards them.
Please keep your "volatile and hostile" humor in the advocacy groups
where it belongs, not in this technical newsgroup (c.o.m.nt.misc), where
we discuss the use of Windows NT in the real world.
There are many people the world over who hate MS-DOS, myself included.
Many of us have wasted all too many hours screwing around with hardware
conflicts, TSRs, unprotected memory, and all of that. Most of us have
found ways to avoid DOS when it matters, such as using OS/2 (me) or
Windows NT (me again). If you want to spend your free time pissing in the
wind at "anything remotely MS-ish", you will get what you deserve: a job
maintaining a Unix system, and a lot of flame mail.
Projecting the limitations of DOS and 16-bit Windows onto Windows NT is a
blind way to look at it. Instead of blowing smoke, I suggest you lay
hands on a copy of Windows NT and install it.
Brian Chase
: Brain Cheese (933...@ul.ie) wrote: <--- ooooh, Intro to Word Play 101.
[snip] (my drivel deleted)
: Please keep your "volatile and hostile" humor in the advocacy groups
: where it belongs, not in this technical newsgroup (c.o.m.nt.misc), where
: we discuss the use of Windows NT in the real world.
Hey! Haven't you heard! You can't just go around quoting people buster!
YOU HAVE TO HAVE MY EXPLICIT PERMISSION!!! (don't pay any attention to those
last three blurts, just an inside joke of sorts.)
Oh well, so much for my treating .misc like a wildcard for a group's contents.
My mistake. Hey what's with this story about NT in the real world too?
[snip]
: If you want to spend your free time pissing in the
: wind at "anything remotely MS-ish", you will get what you deserve: a job
: maintaining a Unix system, and a lot of flame mail.
Promise? ;-)
: Projecting the limitations of DOS and 16-bit Windows onto Windows NT is a
: blind way to look at it. Instead of blowing smoke, I suggest you lay
: hands on a copy of Windows NT and install it.
Perhaps, but time will tell. BTW, are you suggesting I lay my hands on a
copy of NT with or without paying for it? Software piracy can get me in deep
doo-doo with the Feds so I much prefer Linux and GNU GPL-ed software.
*Aside: Do you ever get the feeling that usenet is just full of a bunch of
people who're suffering from job stress and looking for a place to vent
their frustrations?
-brian.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Chase -VoodooMagick-C-Hacker "I have not given you explicit permission
cha...@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu to use any of my posts for your personal
933...@itdsrv1.ul.ie usage." -- AnonySmith at Microsoft
Jerry Shekhel
: : :
: : : Why do I get a UNIX system V login prompt when I telnet to Microsoft?
Hmmm... Why do I get get a BSD UNIX login prompt when I telnet to IBM?
Trying 129.34.139.30...
Connected to ibm.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
4.3 BSD UNIX (nrtops.watson.ibm.com)
login:
:
: No excuses either, if NT is such a hot-cool-spiffy-OS then certainly it could
: perform the friggin trivial tasks of a mail machine and what appears to be
: some "mystic UNIX portal" into the realms of MS. I mean if Microsoft itself
: can't trust NT's security on the internet then why the hell should we?
: And IF NT's security is considered questionable by Microsoft itself, what
: else do the people inside consider questionable about NT?
:
So why isn't ibm.com an OS/2 machine?
: Brian Chase -VoodooMagick-C-Hacker "I run NT on a machine configured for NT
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Junta drew a picture of |
| Drummers do it... | Burlington, MA USA | nectar and hoisted the |
| ... In rhythm! | je...@msi.com | lawn boy over the rift. |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
Brian Chase
: Brian Chase (933...@ul.ie) wrote:
: : Why do I get a UNIX system V login prompt when I telnet to Microsoft?
: Hmmm... Why do I get get a BSD UNIX login prompt when I telnet to IBM?
: So why isn't ibm.com an OS/2 machine?
Because OS/2 was never touted as a "UNIX killer" like NT was.
-brian.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Shekhel
: :
: : Hmmm... Why do I get get a BSD UNIX login prompt when I telnet to IBM?
: : So why isn't ibm.com an OS/2 machine?
:
: Because OS/2 was never touted as a "UNIX killer" like NT was.
Then perhaps you could explain why ibm.com isn't running AIX?
My point was that your conclusion about NT, based on the fact that
microsoft.com runs Unix, was completely ridiculous. Did you expect MS to
replace all their systems with NT on the day it was released? Do you have
any idea of the size of a network like that?
: Brian Chase -VoodooMagick-C-Hacker "I have not given you explicit permission
Bruce Ediger
>Jerry Shekhel (je...@msi.com) wrote:
>: Brian Chase (933...@ul.ie) wrote:
>: : Why do I get a UNIX system V login prompt when I telnet to Microsoft?
>
>: Hmmm... Why do I get get a BSD UNIX login prompt when I telnet to IBM?
>: So why isn't ibm.com an OS/2 machine?
>
>Because OS/2 was never touted as a "UNIX killer" like NT was.
I can't really cite a definitive reference, but this is false.
During the period when MicroSoft was doing OS/2, OS/2 was widely
touted as being a unix killer. I suppose that any of the lickspittle
Pee Cee trade rags, or "BYTE", from the period of about 1988-1990
would have lots of articles that gushed about how advanced OS/2 was,
and how it would "kill UNIX". Then OS/2 hit the market. As I recall,
with the same resounding "thud" that NT has exhibited.
Didn't OS/2 start out as "MS-DOS 4.0"? Didn't NT start out as "MS-DOS 6.0"?
C.P. Brown
|> So why isn't ibm.com an OS/2 machine?
Probably because OS/2 is not hyped to be the OS to replace UNIX.
--
// Chris Brown. finger cpb...@hermes.cam.ac.uk for my PGP public key.
\\ // Cambridge University Computer Society discounts officer
Geir Magnusson Jr.
>
> that says lots more than whether their gate machine is Unix. At this
> point in time, if I were them, I'd be running Unix as my gateway
> onto the internet rather than NT, particularly for SMTP mail.
I've heard about microsoft's collective problems in getting a compliant
mail package (admin friends scream about MS-MAIL for Windowed
Workgroups/Cycle), but what is so hard about SMTP mail? Does NT NoT have
smtp mail?
(Can't they hire someone from DEC or something?)
Geir Magnusson Jr. |
Dept of Physics and Astromony | it was blowin' the dog off the chain!
Johns Hopkins University |
g...@crab.pha.jhu.edu |
Heath I Hunnicutt
gowinnt.microsoft.com are both Windows NT machines. microsoft.com has
been on the net since the days before Windows NT, as an SMTP gateway.
I'm sure MS doesn't want to take email down to upgrade the OS.
Heath
Brian Chase
: Then perhaps you could explain why ibm.com isn't running AIX?
??? coz BSD is a better UNIX? I never claimed IBM was perfect did I :-)
Some people get the idea that I'm entirely pro-IBM because I bash MS. Not
quite the case, but I do like the way OS/2 is getting so much more attention
these days - even if it is primarily because I think it makes MS look kinda
silly (well, a little silly).
: My point was that your conclusion about NT, based on the fact that
: microsoft.com runs Unix, was completely ridiculous. Did you expect MS to
: replace all their systems with NT on the day it was released?
No, but my calendar tells me it's getting pretty close to a year now. Even
then the MS people had access to the code for NT earlier than anyone else and
should have had a pretty good idea how NT would end up. Let's just say it's
been a year and ignore the fact that they could have been making plans a few
months in advance when they had the alpha and beta code available internally,
not to mention the pre-code design.
: Do you have
: any idea of the size of a network like that?
Probably pretty sizeable, large enough I guess that expecting them to convert
over from some reliance on UNIX to complete reliance on NT in the span of a
year is all together unreasonable.
I *know* my original post had it flaws in it's argument, I just like to cause
some waves in the MS camp. Trying to move them towards being more humble
as they badly have a need for it. As is now I get the feeling MS is making
NT out to be the solution for the meaning of life. It's probably a fine OS
functionally, but it suffers from bloat and doesn't perform all that
magnificently with regards to speed. If you're willing and able to spend the
money on a system that can properly run NT then go ahead, that's a personal
choice. I just feel sorry for the people who can't afford it and might have
to deal with it becoming a standard that they're unable to comply with.
-brian.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Chase -VoodooMagick-C-Hacker "I have not given you explicit permission
Brian Chase
: 933...@ul.ie (Brian Chase) wrote:
: >Because OS/2 was never touted as a "UNIX killer" like NT was.
: I can't really cite a definitive reference, but this is false.
: During the period when MicroSoft was doing OS/2, OS/2 was widely
^^^^^^^^^
: touted as being a unix killer.
Perhaps, but until someone cites some articles I'll have my doubts (though
I wouldn't be all that surprised). All I can remember OS/2 claiming to do
was to kill MS-DOS.
Again it seems *Microsoft* is the company bent on perpetrating the idea that
it will kill unix. Hmmmmm... I doubt it. Well, as long as there are FREE
versions of OSes available with a user base of a few thousands of people.
David Rice
I guess even Microsoft realizes that UNIX is the real choice in
operating systems.
Brian Chase
: Why do I get a UNIX system V login prompt when I telnet to Microsoft?
>clickety< >click< >click<
--------------------------------
Trying 131.107.1.3...
Connected to microsoft.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
System V UNIX (netmail)
login:
--------------------------------
Damn, you're right :-) If that isn't an addmission of NT's inability to
replace UNIX then I don't know what the hell is.
-brian.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Chase -VoodooMagick-C-Hacker "I run NT on a machine configured for NT
a...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Heheh, post this to comp.os2.advocacy...I think they would love support
fire power.:-)
Anh
a...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
> In article <CpuD0...@ul.ie> 933...@ul.ie "Brian Chase" writes:
>
>> a lot of stuff about MS running Unix.
>
> Brian,
>
> As I understand it, MS are upgrading all their servers to be NTAS. If
> you were to look at their host file (I'll happily send you part of one)
> you would find that it has litteraly hundreds of NT servers. Frankly,
> that says lots more than whether their gate machine is Unix. At this
> point in time, if I were them, I'd be running Unix as my gateway
> onto the internet rather than NT, particularly for SMTP mail. Once
> Touchdown/EMS is released, you may see this change...
>
> As a rather better example of NT running, try ftp-ing into
> gowinnt.microsoft.com - this is an NT box which has been running since
> NT was released. According to MS, this server has worked continuously
> for months only going down for upgrades. It's been up every time
> I've logged in. There are also supposed to have been no security
> breaches.
>
> So what's the problem...
>
> Thomas
> --
Somehow I question the net worth of the underlined statement. :-)
Anh
Nick Richards
: some waves in the MS camp. Trying to move them towards being more humble
: as they badly have a need for it. As is now I get the feeling MS is making
: NT out to be the solution for the meaning of life. It's probably a fine OS
: functionally, but it suffers from bloat and doesn't perform all that
: magnificently with regards to speed. If you're willing and able to spend the
: money on a system that can properly run NT then go ahead, that's a personal
: choice. I just feel sorry for the people who can't afford it and might have
: to deal with it becoming a standard that they're unable to comply with.
Two points that spring to mind.
1) I know that anyone who hasn't run it will probably not believe it but with
the next release of NT (version 3.5 or Daytona), M$ have really improved the
speed. I ran it on my 486/33 with 16Meg which is a bit slothful for NT3.1 and
the improvement was staggering. I've read figures which say that in
16Meg, 3.5 is around 270% faster than 3.1 and I can well believe them !
I read a quote by (I believe) Jim Alchin (sp ?) who said that M$ was aware when
they shipped NT that it was too resource hungry but that with the first
release they went for stability and reliability. From using it for well over a
year now I think they did pretty well.
2) I know that M$ have many hundreds of NT machines running as servers on
their corp. network, they use them for code management. It is true that some
of their mission critical tasks (such as payroll and accounts) are done on
AS/400s but if it ain't broke, don't fix it !
One reason why you don't get an NT box when you telnet to microsoft.com is that
NT doesn't have a telnet daemon! This is probably is biggest shortcoming, along
with the lack of a remote windowing capability.
Just my 2d (that's old English money)
Nick
--
Nick Richards (n...@datcon.co.uk)
Brian Chase
: 1) I know that anyone who hasn't run it will probably not believe it but with
: the next release of NT (version 3.5 or Daytona), M$ have really improved the
: speed. I ran it on my 486/33 with 16Meg which is a bit slothful for NT3.1 and
: the improvement was staggering. I've read figures which say that in
: 16Meg, 3.5 is around 270% faster than 3.1 and I can well believe them !
Glad to hear that the newer version is going to be more reasonable in it's
expectations for system resources.
: I read a quote by (I believe) Jim Alchin (sp ?) who said that M$ was
: aware when they shipped NT that it was too resource hungry but that with
: the first release they went for stability and reliability. From using it
: for well over a year now I think they did pretty well.
This is an attitude of MS that I think exploits its end users. The attitude
of releasing something that is plainly not up to par with their original
claims, but all the while before hand using MS weight in the marketplace to
capture the attention of potential customers; in the end just to lay a hefty
grogan on these people, instead of what was promised. I think that NT 3.1
should have probably been a lot closer to what NT 3.5 may be. Just hope MS
has a fair upgrade policy.
Nick Richards
: : the first release they went for stability and reliability. From using it
: : for well over a year now I think they did pretty well.
: This is an attitude of MS that I think exploits its end users. The attitude
: of releasing something that is plainly not up to par with their original
: claims, but all the while before hand using MS weight in the marketplace to
: capture the attention of potential customers; in the end just to lay a hefty
: grogan on these people, instead of what was promised. I think that NT 3.1
: should have probably been a lot closer to what NT 3.5 may be. Just hope MS
: has a fair upgrade policy.
This is a fair point, the reason they shipped 3.1 with the resource usage it
had was because they were already about a year behind their original ship date.
I really don't think that if they had waited until now to ship the product they
would have any chance of selling it. I'm not saying this is good practice but
it is realistic, lots of other firms do pretty much the same thing, OS/2 2.0
being one (probably flame inducing) example.
Dave Rogers
a mail/news/internet firewall/gateway because it is easy, cheap and
reliable. Most organizations have legacy systems that they are not about
to get rid of unless YOU want to give them one for free.
Examples:
DEC used UNIX V32 on a VAX for their gateway during the entire time they
were big into VMS.
Sun still uses a SunOS 4.1 box for all of their corporate traffic even
though their big into Solaris 2 for > two years now.
Let's drop it awready.
dave
========================================================================
Dave Rogers Internet: da...@rsd.dl.nec.com
M & R Software, Inc. CIS: 76672,2455
In the absence of leadership, we have decided to follow ourselves.
Tom Hatton
>Brain Cheese (933...@ul.ie) wrote:
>: I am the Anti-Gates (or one of them), and tend to be volatile and hostile
>: in humor towards anything remotely MS-ish. Don't take it personal or
>: anything. I wasted a good chunk of my computer-aware life juggling and
>: dealing with all the quirks of MS-DOS, Windows3.1 and things that run
>: under those environments and have become eternally embittered towards them.
>Please keep your "volatile and hostile" humor in the advocacy groups
>where it belongs, not in this technical newsgroup (c.o.m.nt.misc), where
>we discuss the use of Windows NT in the real world.
Would that be the group where I notice people advising others to dump
OS/2 from their systems, because NT is the best thing around? But then
that's just 'fact' and not advocacy, I guess, to you.
--
Tom Hatton | "...after hearing ten thousand explanations, a fool
hat...@cgl.ucsf.edu| is no wiser. But an intelligent man needs only
| two thousand five hundred." The Mahabharata.
Mike Dahmus
>Jerry Shekhel (je...@msi.com) wrote:
>: Brian Chase (933...@ul.ie) wrote:
>: : Why do I get a UNIX system V login prompt when I telnet to Microsoft?
>
>: Hmmm... Why do I get get a BSD UNIX login prompt when I telnet to IBM?
>: So why isn't ibm.com an OS/2 machine?
>
>Because OS/2 was never touted as a "UNIX killer" like NT was.
Actually, it's because the site you're telnetting into is an RS/6000 in
the Watson Research Center. Quick - anyone know what OS research guys tend to
use and love?
Watson was (for a long time) virtually the only place in IBM with internet
access. Now things are changing a bit.
(There's nothing wrong with OS/2 as an FTP server, btw. I run an internal
anonymous ftp server on my OS/2 machine).
---
Mike Dahmus Internet: mi...@vnet.ibm.com
Pen for OS/2 Development, IBM PSP IBM: mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com
Disclaimer: Not an official IBM spokesman IBM Vnet: MDAHMUS at BOCA
David Charlap
>
>One reason why you don't get an NT box when you telnet to microsoft.com is that
>NT doesn't have a telnet daemon! This is probably is biggest shortcoming, along
>with the lack of a remote windowing capability.
Why couldn't they just download public-domain telnetd sources and
compile them using NT's POSIX personality? The Telnet daemon is
nothing more than a program that opens the telnet TCP/IP port and
responds to connection requests. How hard could it be to modify the
sources so they perform an NT login instead of a Unix login?
---------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
David Charlap | The contents of this message are not the opinions of
da...@visix.com | Visix Software, or of anyone besides myself.
Visix Software, Inc. +--------------------------------------------------------
Member of Team-OS/2 |
---------------------+
Bernd Backhaus
> In article <769021...@psp.co.uk>, t...@psp.co.uk (Thomas F Lee) writes:
> > As a rather better example of NT running, try ftp-ing into
> > gowinnt.microsoft.com - this is an NT box which has been running since
> > NT was released. According to MS, this server has worked continuously
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Somehow I question the net worth of the underlined statement. :-)
Well, at least I always got a connection in the last months, and I've been
there at least once a week.
Cheers,
Bernd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernd Backhaus email: be...@bbbo.ping.de
Am Schamberge 56 Compuserve: 100111,3061
44879 Bochum Fidonet: 2:2445/53.8
Germany
Nick Richards
: Nick Richards <n...@datcon.co.uk> wrote:
: >
: >One reason why you don't get an NT box when you telnet to microsoft.com is that
: >NT doesn't have a telnet daemon! This is probably is biggest shortcoming, along
: >with the lack of a remote windowing capability.
: Why couldn't they just download public-domain telnetd sources and
: compile them using NT's POSIX personality? The Telnet daemon is
: nothing more than a program that opens the telnet TCP/IP port and
: responds to connection requests. How hard could it be to modify the
: sources so they perform an NT login instead of a Unix login?
This is an extremely long running debate in comp.os.windows.nt.misc. The basic
story is this. M$ didn't include telnetd in NT (possibly because they didn't
want to affect security though I've not seen this confirmed, nor am I convinced
that telnetd would be a big security hole, at least no more so than ftpd).
You can't just use the POSIX API because if you do you can't also use the Win32
API and hence can't run most of the apps you want to.
No third party has been able to produce a really good telnetd because M$ are
reluctant to disclose the logon API (it is apparently likely to change with
Cairo) though if you ask them directly you can supposedly get it in return for
signing an NDA.
David Charlap
>
>This is a fair point, the reason they shipped 3.1 with the resource
>usage it had was because they were already about a year behind their
>original ship date.
More than that. If you want to go back to the "original" ship date,
it was slated for December '91. But nobody seriously believed that
claim. They were actually 2.5 years late. But who's counting? :-)
>I really don't think that if they had waited until now to ship the
>product they would have any chance of selling it.
Probably. This whole thing with NT and shipping dates sounds like
they didn't realize the amount of work NT would require when they got
started on the project.
Combine that with the fact that the API was expanding during much of
the 2.5 years of "slip time". I don't think security, Unicode and
built-in networking were originally in the design - they were added
later, causing more schedule slips.
>I'm not saying this is good practice but it is realistic, lots of
>other firms do pretty much the same thing, OS/2 2.0 being one
>(probably flame inducing) example.
Absolutely right. Although it's better to ship late than buggy (which
MS's apps division hasn't learned yet...), there does come a point
when you have to bite the bullet and release what you have. If you
hit that stage, stability far outweight speed and size.
As for OS/2 2.0, they also slipped, but not nearly as much. Their
original December '91 date slipped until May - 5 months. And IBM did
ship the "LA" release of OS/2 2.0 to customers who asked for it - so
companies planning on the original date wouldn't be completely
screwed.
And as it turns out, IBM ended up slipping for many of the same
reasons NT slipped - new features. The public wanted seamless Windows
app support in the first release, and didn't want to wait for 2.1. So
IBM changed priorities and managed to get that in the first release.
But it cost them - less debugging/testing and a 5 month schedule slip.
In retrospect, who can say what would be the right decision?
Certainly not me. I would have wanted something more stable, even if
Windows apps had to run full-screen, but my desires are a far cry from
what the typical computer user wants.
R S Rodgers
[...]
>And as it turns out, IBM ended up slipping for many of the same
>reasons NT slipped - new features. The public wanted seamless Windows
>app support in the first release, and didn't want to wait for 2.1. So
>IBM changed priorities and managed to get that in the first release.
IBM managed to "sorta" get it in the first release. They got the
support done on the Win-OS/2 side, but not on the drivers side.
1st release 2.0 couldn't, for instance, run seamless windows on
8514 cards, an IBM staple. They did make it for XGA and VGA,
though.
--
Visit your local library and request If you know what the rules are,
a form to join Caning Party USA, the then you can break them carefully.
pro-punishment party.
Reply to rsro...@wam.umd.edu
Brian Chase
: Why couldn't they just download public-domain telnetd sources and
: compile them using NT's POSIX personality? The Telnet daemon is
: nothing more than a program that opens the telnet TCP/IP port and
: responds to connection requests. How hard could it be to modify the
: sources so they perform an NT login instead of a Unix login?
D00DZ!!!1 1TZ C0Z TELNETED 15 WR1TTEN UZ1NG TH@ B0GUS *SEE* LANG!!!111
WH1CH WUZ MAD3 AT XER0X 1N 1951!!! 1F TELNETED WAS K00L!!!1 & WR1TTEN 1N
*K1CK-AZZ* QBAS1C 0R TURB0 PASCAL 1T W0UD W0RK!!!!111 BUT *SEE* SUXZ!!1
L8R D000000DZZZ!!1
P.5. TH15 B0ARD SUXZ!!!111 F1D0NET RULZE!!1 CHECK 0UT ALL THE K00L
VIK-20 WAREZ @ MY BBS "KASTLE N1TE-R1DER"!!!!1111 (207)555-1212
Thomas F Lee
> > In article <769021...@psp.co.uk>, t...@psp.co.uk (Thomas F Lee) writes:
>
> > > As a rather better example of NT running, try ftp-ing into
> > > gowinnt.microsoft.com - this is an NT box which has been running since
> > > NT was released. According to MS, this server has worked continuously
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > Somehow I question the net worth of the underlined statement. :-)
>
> Well, at least I always got a connection in the last months, and I've been
> there at least once a week.
I wasn't going to comment, but...
Said statement came from MS. I have not seen the server, and have no access
to server uptime records. Therefore I believe the statement to be true,
but attribute it accordingly. I have used it significantly over the past
10 -12 months and it has been up far more that the local link has. At times
the transmission is a bit slow (we had a very slow link across the pond) but
it's been up each time I've tried it.
The point was that whereas a Unix system might be excellent as a mail
front-end, NT can and is being used in large environments. Expect to
see the relevant login change in due course.
Regards,
Thomas
--
+-----------------+---------------------------+
! Thomas F Lee ! Voice: 0628 850 077 !
! t...@psp.co.uk ! Fax : 0628 850 143 !
+-----------------+---------------------------+
Death roll - Been there, done that...
>2) I know that M$ have many hundreds of NT machines running as servers on
>their corp. network, they use them for code management. It is true that some
>of their mission critical tasks (such as payroll and accounts) are done on
>AS/400s but if it ain't broke, don't fix it !
Can anybody confirm or deny the rumor that a lot of their SW development is
done on VMS?
Tom O'Toole - ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu - JHUVMS system programmer
Homewood Computing Facilities - Johns Hopkins University, Balto. Md. 21218
Disco music makes it possible to have 'disco entertainment centers',
where dull, boring people can meet, and reproduce. - Frank
Death roll - Been there, done that...
>Bruce Ediger (bed...@teal.csn.org) wrote:
>: 933...@ul.ie (Brian Chase) wrote:
>: >Because OS/2 was never touted as a "UNIX killer" like NT was.
>
>: I can't really cite a definitive reference, but this is false.
>: During the period when MicroSoft was doing OS/2, OS/2 was widely
> ^^^^^^^^^
>: touted as being a unix killer.
During the period when MicroSoft was doing OS/2, I seriously doubt any PC
rag had even HEARD of unix.
Philip Pearl
: |> So why isn't ibm.com an OS/2 machine?
: Probably because OS/2 is not hyped to be the OS to replace UNIX.
More importantly, why isn't it an AS/400 or an ES/9000. Why doesn't it
run AIX at least?
Even more importantly, does anyone really care?
Brian Chase
Previously I be-spake:
: Checked it out. Seems pretty nice for an ftp server admittedly. I'll even
: give it an 8 out of 10 for initial appearances and responsiveness. Questions
: for the MS people out there though: How many simultaneous ftp sessions does
: ftp.microsoft.com support (really) and on what hardware?
To follow up.
Info from an MS WinNT developer, received last night...
MS> Here's the data from last week: [Brian Notes: May 8 - May 14 ???]
# Our bandwidth to the Internet will be upgraded in the near future as well.
# At this point bandwidth is limiting the amount of data we can pump
# during the busy daytime hours.
# Anonymous ftp stats for the week:
# Total number of anonymous users: 54,766
# Total number of files pulled: 162,875
# Total number of files received: 84
# Largest number of concurrent users: 126
# Average number of bytes/sec: 33.8 K/second = 2.03 M/minute = 122 M/hr
# Average number of Gbytes/day: 2.92
# Total Gbytes transferred: 20.5
# (All figures on bytes transferred are gathered at the application
# layer....so they don't include any overhead such as packet
# headers, acknowledgements, or retransmissions.)
MS> Note that the average is 122 MB/hr. During a large portion of the day
MS> the machine is idling w/ few people connecting. During the busy hours
MS> it's a lot higher. 126 users, most of whom are busily downloading
MS> files, is fairly impressive IMHO.
MS> It's running on a single processor machine, a 486/66 I believe. At
MS> last I heard it had 32 MB of memory. It will be upgraded to a dual
MS> processor machine soon, if it hasn't already.
[ snip - std disclaimer of not speaking officially for MS ]
That's looks pretty good to me as far as what I know about ftp servers.
Okay, I'm sure places like wuarchive, ftp.nic.fi, or any of the massive ftp
servers out there completely dwarf the above MS figures, but all things
considered the MS figures are to be looked at with a certain amount of
respect. (Of course now I really wonder how many people we could get
simulaneously ftping on the 8Meg 486/33 Linux box in the student village
here? hmmmm... ;-)
Yeah, I know. I'm just another damn Linux-head.
I'm sure to keep on slaggin' MS (even unrealistically so) because it provides
me with nearly endless entertainment possibilities, but I'll give 'em some
credit. I was hoping that the ftp server would have something like a 32
user limit. Oh well... :-)
-brian.
P.5. N33D TELNETED!!!111 D000DZ!!!1
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Brown
Death roll - Been there, done that... <ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> wrote:
>
>Can anybody confirm or deny the rumor that a lot of their SW development is
>done on VMS?
>
I worked there until last December, and can tell you that the
development work on NT was done on NT, from before the very first
release of NT to third-party developers.
dave
PeSkY!
>D00DZ!!!1 1TZ C0Z TELNETED 15 WR1TTEN UZ1NG TH@ B0GUS *SEE* LANG!!!111
>WH1CH WUZ MAD3 AT XER0X 1N 1951!!! 1F TELNETED WAS K00L!!!1 & WR1TTEN 1N
>*K1CK-AZZ* QBAS1C 0R TURB0 PASCAL 1T W0UD W0RK!!!!111 BUT *SEE* SUXZ!!1
I'm sorry, but this was just too good to pass up :-)
1) WHERE ON EARTH did you learn to spell/type?!?!?!
2) AFAIK the 'C' language is a development of 'B', which was a simplified
version of 'BCPL'. Also, AFAIK 'C' was written at Bell Labs for use
in the then-young Unix project. In fact, according to the book I have in
front of me (I wasn't born then, so I'll believe it :-) ), C was
written in 1972 by Dennis M Ritchie. About a year later Mr Ritchie
and Ken Thompson re-wrote the Unix OS in C. Several years later,
Ritchie & Brian Kernighan wrote the book about C 'The C programming
language', and hence 'K&R C' was born. I've never heard any involvement of
the peeps at Xerox.
3) If telnetd was written in 'qbasic', a) all the Unix machines would
suddenly stop accepting Telnet requests and b) all the people
who know C would snigger. QBasic was never designed for this sort
of work.
4) Turbo-Pascal? Turbo-Pukescal more like. It's OK for teaching newbies the
necessaries of proper programming (recursion,procedures,etc) but as
a development language it sucks.
Yours
Gary
--
The opinions expressed above are not mine, and are not the companys.
Where the h**l did they come form ?!?!! | PGP key by finger.
Eric van Bezooijen
Subject: Re: UNIX login when telnet Microsoft.com
Summary:
Expires:
References: <1994May15.0...@rogue.com> <CpyAE...@visix.com> <CpyyE...@ul.ie> <2rcc7v$5...@scoob.xap.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Computer Science Undergraduate Association, UCBerkeley
Keywords:
Cc:
^^^^^^^^
Speaking of spelling/typing.
But who cares, B!FF has found another victim!
-Eric
--
"I have ... Cary Grant karma, because I always prevail! Barry has Mussolini
karma, because he was doing great for a while, and then he had a really bad
day"-The Tick,#12//"Oh joy of joys!"-Stimpson J. Cat,Ren&Stimpy//"Faboo!",Wakko-
Eric van Bezooijen:er...@soda.berkeley.edu| eric.van...@sun.com//Animaniacs
Brian Chase
: In article <CpyyE...@ul.ie>, Brian Chase <933...@ul.ie> wrote:
: >D00DZ!!!1 1TZ C0Z TELNETED 15 WR1TTEN UZ1NG TH@ B0GUS *SEE* LANG!!!111
: >WH1CH WUZ MAD3 AT XER0X 1N 1951!!! 1F TELNETED WAS K00L!!!1 & WR1TTEN 1N
: >*K1CK-AZZ* QBAS1C 0R TURB0 PASCAL 1T W0UD W0RK!!!!111 BUT *SEE* SUXZ!!1
: I'm sorry, but this was just too good to pass up :-)
: 1) WHERE ON EARTH did you learn to spell/type?!?!?!
: 2) AFAIK the 'C' language is a development of 'B', which was a simplified
: version of 'BCPL'. Also, AFAIK 'C' was written at Bell Labs for use
[snip]
: 3) If telnetd was written in 'qbasic', a) all the Unix machines would
[snip]
: 4) Turbo-Pascal? Turbo-Pukescal more like. It's OK for teaching newbies the
[snip]
: Yours
: Gary
Damn, I wasn't even trolling. They just jump in the boat these days.
-brian.
R S Rodgers
>PeSkY! (pe...@xap.com) was thoroughly trolled.
>Damn, I wasn't even trolling. They just jump in the boat these days.
You have to throw them back when they're this small.
Trevor Lawrence
>
>In article <769021...@psp.co.uk>, t...@psp.co.uk (Thomas F Lee) writes:
>> In article <CpuD0...@ul.ie> 933...@ul.ie "Brian Chase" writes:
>>
>>> a lot of stuff about MS running Unix.
>>
>> Brian,
>>
>>
>> NT was released. According to MS, this server has worked continuously
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> for months only going down for upgrades. It's been up every time
>> I've logged in. There are also supposed to have been no security
>> breaches.
>>
>> So what's the problem...
>>
>> Thomas
>> --
>
>Somehow I question the net worth of the underlined statement. :-)
>
>
>Anh
Why not believe them. We have NT servers here with 100 to 150
connections at a time on each and they just don't go down. They run for
months on end and only are only rebooted for serious software upgrades. We
have never seen security breaches either.
Trevor Lawrence
Faculty of Information Sciences and Engineering
University of Canberra, AUSTRALIA
C.P. Brown
|> In article <CpyyE...@ul.ie>, Brian Chase <933...@ul.ie> wrote:
|> >D00DZ!!!1 1TZ C0Z TELNETED 15 WR1TTEN UZ1NG TH@ B0GUS *SEE* LANG!!!111
|> >WH1CH WUZ MAD3 AT XER0X 1N 1951!!! 1F TELNETED WAS K00L!!!1 & WR1TTEN 1N
|> >*K1CK-AZZ* QBAS1C 0R TURB0 PASCAL 1T W0UD W0RK!!!!111 BUT *SEE* SUXZ!!1
|>
|> I'm sorry, but this was just too good to pass up :-)
|>
|> 1) WHERE ON EARTH did you learn to spell/type?!?!?!
|>
|> 2) AFAIK the 'C' language is a development of 'B', which was a simplified
|> version of 'BCPL'. Also, AFAIK 'C' was written at Bell Labs for use
[large whinge deleted]
|> 3) If telnetd was written in 'qbasic', a) all the Unix machines would
[large whinge deleted]
|> 4) Turbo-Pascal? Turbo-Pukescal more like. It's OK for teaching newbies the
[large whinge deleted]
Either your post was also a wind up, or your sense of humour and ability to spot
blatant irony is seriously under developed. For goodness sake, did you really
think he was serious? Oh dear dear dear......
--
// Chris Brown. finger cpb...@hermes.cam.ac.uk for my PGP public key.
\\ // Cambridge University Computer Society discounts officer
\X/ Amiga - rising from the ashes.
Geir Magnusson Jr.
wrote:
>
> I worked there until last December, and can tell you that the
> development work on NT was done on NT, from before the very first
> release of NT to third-party developers.
>
> dave
NT was spontaneously generated? What, did they buy the skeleton from
someone?
Geir Magnusson Jr. |
Dept of Physics and Astromony | I was there on that Death Roll....
Johns Hopkins University | broke my damn spin pole....
g...@crab.pha.jhu.edu |
Brian Chase
first time I ever used a B1FFism. Does this always happen when B1FF posts to
newsgroups!?
[Let's see that in instant replay]
PeSkY! (pe...@xap.com) wrote:
: Yours
: Gary
In true disbelief, I thought I was being trolled... I even e-mailed the
guy I was so concerned, I just didn't know there were people out there
like that who were so untouched and detached from reality to even except
something as absurd as BIFF to be an honest and face value form of
expression. I mean, it's such a blatantly friggin obvious spoof!!!
In general I wouldn't consider posting an e-mail to a newsgroup, but this
case is an exception. I still think I'm being trolled, but if so -
the trollers are get more sophisticated, using truly magnificent bait.
I never bite, but this - if it is a troll - is exactly how you'd catch me.
------- e-mail follows ------------------------------------------
Brian> Let me guess. You're a comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy reader?
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt - nope - don't read ony .advocacy groups, they are too
like .flame groups. This is the closet I get to a .advocacy.
Brian> Or are you just trolling us?
I beg your pardon?
If I knew what the eant I might be able to answer the accusation.
But I *WAS* serious in my post - neither QBasic nor Turbo-Pascal are
good development environments. For one BASIC was designed as an
interpreted language, and even compiled BASIC can't match the
speed and code efficency that you get from any half-decent C
compiler.
As for Turbo-Pascal, I haven't used the later versions of the compiler,
but pascal was not designed to do, for example, dynamic memory
allocation (C's 'malloc()') and so on. The peeps who wrote TP might
have 'bolted on C-like fn's, but it's still not a good language. (I
could never get over the limited usefulness of writeln, let alone
anything else).
Yours
Gary
------ end of e-mail ------------------------------------------------
All I can say is... Yes Gary, I know. I mean, I practically force fed via
B1FF sledgehammer 99.999% pure crystaline sarcasm to you and STILL you
insist on attempting to make sense of it, and then even approach it with
knowledge, reason, and truth. (though I am pretty sure Pascal has the
ability to dynamically allocate memory)
I don't think I'll get over this experience for a while. But I *do* think
I'll be letting B1FF use my account more.
Actually, maybe we could add a new usenet personality to the bag. We could
have the PeSKY. a.k.a. the prototypical Trollee. Wherever BIFF shows his
head a PeSKY could reason with him, attempt to show BIFF the way.
-brian.
I am being repressed.
>3) If telnetd was written in 'qbasic', a) all the Unix machines would
> suddenly stop accepting Telnet requests and b) all the people
> who know C would snigger. QBasic was never designed for this sort
> of work.
Ewe R ObVIOUzLY A MIcROSFTO SPTY$#!%*( DO GNOt DOUBT tHE POwer Of THE MIgTYy
QBasIC Or IU wiill DIE!@#!@# HAveNT U eVer SEEEEN QbasIC BNibb<ELLS?! Or
THqaTJ INcREidbLE ACCouNTING ProgRAM THat CuMZ Wit IT@!#$ QbasIc IZ EWayu TO
3litE 4 Ur ComprEHeNSzioN. HEr3 IZ REaSONGz WHy QbaasIC Iz BEttER:
1: Not STuPId POIntERZ That Waty U DONt HAve TO LizTEN TO People Say WELL It
WORked THE 1st TIME I RAn IT
2: Gn0 STupId PRINtF Where PEopl e GET ALL CONfusED wHAt to DO
3: IT USES ALL CAPITAL LETTERS FOR EVERYTHING THAT IS RESERVED LIKE A REAL:
LANGUAGE SHOULD NONE OF THIS MIS-MATCHED CRAP LIKE LITTLE KIDDIES USE
4:: BasIC Iz LIke REaLLY PorTAbLE
5: It Waz WrITTEn BY MicROSft And WE aLl gNOw HOW g00o They ARe At
SteaLI...ER WrITIng BASiuc K0mpilERZ err NO wAIt
InteRPEtERZZ!@#!@$$#@%$#YT%#T
ALL HAIL BILL HE IS LIKE REAL
--
White man spelled backwards is pork - CB4
I am being repressed.
Trevor Lawrence <tre...@ise.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
>Why not believe them. We have NT servers here with 100 to 150
>connections at a time on each and they just don't go down. They run for
>months on end and only are only rebooted for serious software upgrades. We
>have never seen security breaches either.
>
Sounds a lot like a novell server. Which costs less and has the same
functionality as a NT box.
Death roll - Been there, done that...
>In article <CpyyE...@ul.ie>, Brian Chase <933...@ul.ie> wrote:
>>D00DZ!!!1 1TZ C0Z TELNETED 15 WR1TTEN UZ1NG TH@ B0GUS *SEE* LANG!!!111
>>WH1CH WUZ MAD3 AT XER0X 1N 1951!!! 1F TELNETED WAS K00L!!!1 & WR1TTEN 1N
>>*K1CK-AZZ* QBAS1C 0R TURB0 PASCAL 1T W0UD W0RK!!!!111 BUT *SEE* SUXZ!!1
>
>I'm sorry, but this was just too good to pass up :-)
Could you possibly be any MOAH pedantic, gary?? JEAZE LOUEAZE!
Kai Uwe Rommel
>Brain Cheese (933...@ul.ie) wrote:
>
>: I am the Anti-Gates (or one of them), and tend to be volatile and hostile
>: in humor towards anything remotely MS-ish. Don't take it personal or
>: anything. I wasted a good chunk of my computer-aware life juggling and
>: dealing with all the quirks of MS-DOS, Windows3.1 and things that run
>: under those environments and have become eternally embittered towards them.
>
>Please keep your "volatile and hostile" humor in the advocacy groups
>where it belongs, not in this technical newsgroup (c.o.m.nt.misc), where
>we discuss the use of Windows NT in the real world.
>
>Many of us have wasted all too many hours screwing around with hardware
>conflicts, TSRs, unprotected memory, and all of that. Most of us have
>found ways to avoid DOS when it matters, such as using OS/2 (me) or
>Windows NT (me again). If you want to spend your free time pissing in the
>wind at "anything remotely MS-ish", you will get what you deserve: a job
>maintaining a Unix system, and a lot of flame mail.
>
>Projecting the limitations of DOS and 16-bit Windows onto Windows NT is a
>blind way to look at it. Instead of blowing smoke, I suggest you lay
>hands on a copy of Windows NT and install it.
I guess that will only make his opinion on NT worse ...
Kai Uwe Rommel
--
/* Kai Uwe Rommel Muenchen, Germany *
* rom...@ars.muc.de CompuServe 100265,2651 *
* rom...@informatik.tu-muenchen.de Fax +49 89 324 4524 */
DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be. -Russell Williams
Heath I Hunnicutt
>Sounds a lot like a novell server. Which costs less and has the same
>functionality as a NT box.
Except that NT is missing the heartache of having to setup and administer
a Novell server. I've had experience as the admin of a Novell net, and
let me tell you, Novell sucks big donkey dick.
Heath
Dave Duling
>
>Brian Chase (933...@ul.ie) wrote:
>: : :
>: : : Why do I get a UNIX system V login prompt when I telnet to Microsoft?
>: : :
>
DUH... maybe its because NT doesn't provide DNS, routed, or sendmail
services ? Maybe its because NT is (for better or worse!) built for a
different kind of network than internet-unix-tcp/ip ?
Notice however:
microsoft.com 131.107.1.3
ftp.microsoft.com 198.105.232.1
gowinnt.microsoft.com -ditto-
see ? they are two different machines ! Jeesh, even different
subnets; I cant explain that one !
-dave duling
dul...@niehs.nih.gov
George J. Carrette
> No, but my calendar tells me it's getting pretty close to a year now. Even
> then the MS people had access to the code for NT earlier than anyone ...
> ... I guess that expecting them to convert
> over from some reliance on UNIX to complete reliance on NT in the span of a
> year is all together unreasonable.
It is more reasonable to expect them to take years to convert their
mail gateway over to NT. For example, my mail gateway at MITECH.COM
is running VMS 4.7, as it has been since it was installed over five years
ago. All my fancy new Pentium, Alpha and other machines have better
things to do. Until the hardware actually dies or becomes too expensive
to maintain or needs to be upgraded in an way that is not cost effective
then most people just don't bother to waste the time in switching operating
systems on a utility machine like a mail gateway.
> ... NT out to be the solution for the meaning of life.
> It's probably a fine OS functionally, but it suffers from bloat
> and doesn't perform all that magnificently with regards to speed.
Obviously you haven't had a chance to compare the speed of 3.1 to
the 3.50 Beta Build 612.
NT isn't old enough to have bloat. Lack of tuning yes.
But for bloat you are going to have to wait a few years.
Brian Chase
: In article <Cpx0A...@ul.ie>, 933...@ul.ie (Brian Chase) writes:
: > ... NT out to be the solution for the meaning of life.
: > and doesn't perform all that magnificently with regards to speed.
: Obviously you haven't had a chance to compare the speed of 3.1 to
: the 3.50 Beta Build 612.
ObviOUSly... Mortimer, fetch the Rolls... and while your at it get me a copy
of that new NT 3.5 Beta Build 1,889,812.
: NT isn't old enough to have bloat. Lack of tuning yes.
: But for bloat you are going to have to wait a few years.
I recently had the privilege of a small e-mail discussion with one of the
NT developers. He says that 3.5 in 8Megs runs comparable to 3.1 in 16Megs.
I don't know but a drop in memory requirements by a factor of two seems to
be a little bit more than just fine tuning. Impressive nonetheless.
Maybe NT "original flavor" didn't have bloat in the traditional sense but the
above figures tend to make me believe that it definately must have suffered
from some sort of intrinsic weight problem.
-brian.
Disclaimer: These opinions are all mine mine mine mine mine. They're not
the opinions of nor reflect the opinions of: Microsoft, IBM, DEC, Apple,
Sun, SGI, Hewlett Packard, AT&T, your mother ...
The Programmer Guy
>
> How hard could it be to modify the [telnet] sources so they perform
> an NT login instead of a Unix login?
"How hard could it be..." Famous last words.
I can just hear a Microsoft would-be dictator whining to his minion:
"How Hard Could It Be to write a 32-bit operating system? So what if
we're only writing 16-bit stuff right now -- we'll get THICKER CABLES."
Oh, yeah: :-)
---
--Jim Kimble jki...@nostromo.Corp.Sun.COM
Yet Another UNIX Contractor "I neither speak nor work for Sun."
"ALPO is 99 cents a can... that's almost SEVEN dog dollars!!"
David Brown
Geir Magnusson Jr. <g...@crab.pha.jhu.edu> wrote:
>In article <CpzqM...@eskimo.com>, davi...@eskimo.com (David Brown)
>wrote:
>>
>> I worked there until last December, and can tell you that the
>> development work on NT was done on NT, from before the very first
>> release of NT to third-party developers.
>>
>> dave
>
>NT was spontaneously generated? What, did they buy the skeleton from
>someone?
Pardon me, I forgot to mention that they did use another platform until
NT was stable enough to self host. MS does encourage developers to
"eat their own dogfood," so to speak.
dave
Tom Haapanen
>:|> So why isn't ibm.com an OS/2 machine?
>:Probably because OS/2 is not hyped to be the OS to replace UNIX.
pj...@datcon.co.uk (Philip Pearl) writes:
> More importantly, why isn't it an AS/400 or an ES/9000.
Maybe because the Internet doesn't conform to the OpenEBCDIC standard... :)
--
[ /tom haapanen -- to...@metrics.com -- software metrics inc -- waterloo, ont ]
[ "the edsel is here to stay" -- henry ford, 1957 ]
Jeremy Reimer
>In article <CpyyE...@ul.ie>, Brian Chase <933...@ul.ie> wrote:
>>D00DZ!!!1 1TZ C0Z TELNETED 15 WR1TTEN UZ1NG TH@ B0GUS *SEE* LANG!!!111
>>WH1CH WUZ MAD3 AT XER0X 1N 1951!!! 1F TELNETED WAS K00L!!!1 & WR1TTEN 1N
>>*K1CK-AZZ* QBAS1C 0R TURB0 PASCAL 1T W0UD W0RK!!!!111 BUT *SEE* SUXZ!!1
>
>I'm sorry, but this was just too good to pass up :-)
>
>1) WHERE ON EARTH did you learn to spell/type?!?!?!
Heard of sarcasm? Heard of B1FF?
Learn about both, then get back to us.
Oh, and btw: YHBT. YHL. HAND.
--
Jeremy "OS/2ibo" Reimer
Completely uninvolved in the Imminent Death of the Net since 1989.
"This is the snobbery of the people on the Mayflower looking down
their noses at the people who came over ON THE SECOND BOAT!"
- Mitch Kapor, on Usenet elitism
Kenneth Kasajian
>Brian Chase (933...@ul.ie) wrote:
>: David Rice (da...@rogue.com) wrote:
>: : Why do I get a UNIX system V login prompt when I telnet to Microsoft?
>: >clickety< >click< >click<
>: --------------------------------
>: Trying 131.107.1.3...
>: Connected to microsoft.com.
>: Escape character is '^]'.
>: System V UNIX (netmail)
>: login:
>: --------------------------------
>I know it's generally considered bad to follow up to your own posts but
>it seemed appropriate in this case...
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Trying 131.107.1.2...
>Connected to 131.107.1.2.
>Escape character is '^]'.
>UNIX System V Release 3.2 (ingate.microsoft.com) (ttyp0)
>login:
>----------------------------------------------------------
>That's two eggs in the collective (we are Borg) face of MS. Those people at
>Microsoft, they're just so SiLLy.
>No excuses either, if NT is such a hot-cool-spiffy-OS then certainly it could
>perform the friggin trivial tasks of a mail machine and what appears to be
>some "mystic UNIX portal" into the realms of MS. I mean if Microsoft itself
>can't trust NT's security on the internet then why the hell should we?
>And IF NT's security is considered questionable by Microsoft itself, what
>else do the people inside consider questionable about NT?
Windows NT 3.1 could not do what Unix can as far as Internet access is
concerned. Maybe Daytona can. In any case, Microsoft uses a Sun as the
gateway to the internet and the the Microsoft SMTP Gateway product that runs
on a regular DOS PC as the postoffice gateway. I do the same thing. Works
like a charm. The Sun running Unix is just used as a dumb router.
Although, it is taking up more space that I'd like.
A G Jackson
Besides, what about:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trying 131.107.1.2...
Connected to 131.107.1.2.
Escape character is '^]'.
Windows NT Release 3.1 (ingate.microsoft.com) (ttyp0)
Fatal Application Error
Connection closed by host.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Adrian Jackson | a.g.j...@durham.ac.uk | 27 North Bailey, DURHAM |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Cat: Is that what I think it is? |
| Lister: What d'you think it is? |
| Cat: An orange whirly thing in space! |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
George J. Carrette
> George J. Carrette (g...@mitech.com) wrote:
> : NT isn't old enough to have bloat. Lack of tuning yes.
> : But for bloat you are going to have to wait a few years.
>
> I recently had the privilege of a small e-mail discussion with one of the
> NT developers. He says that 3.5 in 8Megs runs comparable to 3.1 in 16Megs.
> I don't know but a drop in memory requirements by a factor of two seems to
> be a little bit more than just fine tuning. Impressive nonetheless.
In the 1980's I worked with two ports of the Lispmachine operating system.
One on Symbolics as a user and as a compiler/microcode hacker on
the LMI-LAMBDA.
The initial commercial releases of both machines were slower in
many ways than the previous incarnation/implementation. (At MIT)
Over the next two years both machines speed up by a factor of 4 to 5
on a lot of important things. Improvements in the memory management
software were also significant.
This sort of behavior is just commonplace for many good reasons.
Especially when there are a lot of tagged data structures and
runtime dispatching going on in a system.
> Maybe NT "original flavor" didn't have bloat in the traditional sense but the
> above figures tend to make me believe that it definately must have suffered
> from some sort of intrinsic weight problem.
No, NT clearly lacked a full analysis of locality and a probable codepath
analysis tuning.
Bloat is what happens when the initial tuning assumptions are blown
away by too much code modification and feature addition by code copying
and specialization over time. At which time all of your tuning makes
things worse.
Many vendors Unix implementations: these suffer from true bloat.
Which features are the most important to make fast? Which features
should be implemented in terms of more primitive features?
Nobody can really answer these questions anymore. Hacks abound.
(Such as third-party NFS server kludges). Benchmarks run with
shared libraries turned off, etc. Good cases good, bad cases
really, really, really bad.
VMS: Still suffers from a lack of tuning in some areas. Now that
DIGITAL isn't growing so fast any more maybe they will take the time
to fix things. But there is definitely some bloat. Still VMS 6.0
will run fine on a 4 MB machine of 1 MIP.
-gjc
Mike
>Ewe R ObVIOUzLY A MIcROSFTO SPTY$#!%*( DO GNOt DOUBT tHE POwer Of THE MIgTYy
>QBasIC Or IU wiill DIE!@#!@# HAveNT U eVer SEEEEN QbasIC BNibb<ELLS?! Or
>THqaTJ INcREidbLE ACCouNTING ProgRAM THat CuMZ Wit IT@!#$ QbasIc IZ EWayu TO
>3litE 4 Ur ComprEHeNSzioN. HEr3 IZ REaSONGz WHy QbaasIC Iz BEttER:
You don't really expect people to read a whole page of this shit do
you? Are you elite now? Are you a REAL H/P man? Please evolve.
++Mike
Michael Miller
Hay You with all this Sh*t Stop it it's pissing me off as well.
I am being repressed.
>
>Hay You with all this Sh*t Stop it it's pissing me off as well.
HaY Du0d Like WHat THHE HELL Iz UR PROBLME!@#?!@?#@! I THIAKJNK YU NEEd TO
LIKE tAKaes A sEDAtIVe OR sOMETHING IT zI JHErKZ LIKE IU THat GHive THE NET
a BAd NAMEEX I BEy t YOU Juzt Got Off OF UR ELite POrDIGY AccOUNT DIDDnt
ewe?!@?#?!@$? Du0d AdMIT IT. WHY DONt GO BAcK tO Ur NEytSEx GROUPZ N0w Du0d,
Ok
? WE aRe FDDoing SOMer SErIOUZ Talk ABOUT WINDOZE?
BTW WHEn Iz THe NEew Versi0n Of EDLinb for WIIndozE COMin 0uT?!
Michael Nelson
: Windows NT 3.1 could not do what Unix can as far as Internet access is
: concerned. Maybe Daytona can. In any case, Microsoft uses a Sun as the
: gateway to the internet and the the Microsoft SMTP Gateway product that runs
: on a regular DOS PC as the postoffice gateway. I do the same thing. Works
: like a charm. The Sun running Unix is just used as a dumb router.
: Although, it is taking up more space that I'd like.
No they aren't -- they are using a 486 running their own brand of UNIX
(XENIX) that they wrote MANY years ago. I fear for my life if I say anything
more about Microsoft internals :-).
-- Mike
(FWIW, I have worked as a consultant/intern for them for 2 years)
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Michael Nelson mik...@netcom.com
Windows NT / Linux / Windows 3.1 -- E-Mail for more info on Linux
PGP 2.3 Public Key - use finger or ftp: netcom.com:/pub/mikenel/pubkey.asc
Joseph A. Liu
: In article <9...@micahelm.win.net>, Michael Miller <mi...@micahelm.win.net> wrote:
: >
: >Hay You with all this Sh*t Stop it it's pissing me off as well.
: HaY Du0d Like WHat THHE HELL Iz UR PROBLME!@#?!@?#@! I THIAKJNK YU NEEd TO
: LIKE tAKaes A sEDAtIVe OR sOMETHING IT zI JHErKZ LIKE IU THat GHive THE NET
: a BAd NAMEEX I BEy t YOU Juzt Got Off OF UR ELite POrDIGY AccOUNT DIDDnt
: ewe?!@?#?!@$? Du0d AdMIT IT. WHY DONt GO BAcK tO Ur NEytSEx GROUPZ N0w Du0d,
: Ok
Can't spell can't you?
: --
: White man spelled backwards is pork - CB4
Your mother.
--
-----
Joseph A. Liu
Cyber-Communications, Inc.
Government Electronics Group
I am being repressed.
Joseph A. Liu <jos...@clark.net> wrote:
>Can't spell can't you?
Uhhhh yhea. Wow. You dissed me hard, huh?
>: White man spelled backwards is pork - CB4
>Your mother.
Wow. 2 for 2. I think I will go kill myself now.
Marc Thibault
One can only hope.
Nathan Pettigrew
> Kenneth Kasajian (kasa...@netcom.com) wrote:
> : Windows NT 3.1 could not do what Unix can as far as Internet access is
> : concerned. Maybe Daytona can. In any case, Microsoft uses a Sun as the
> : gateway to the internet and the the Microsoft SMTP Gateway product that runs
> : on a regular DOS PC as the postoffice gateway. I do the same thing. Works
> : like a charm. The Sun running Unix is just used as a dumb router.
> : Although, it is taking up more space that I'd like.
>
"Windows NT 3.1 could not do what UNIX can as far as Internet access is concerned."?
I don't know if this has been mentioned here before, but ftp.microsoft.com is a Windows
NT 3.1 Advanced Server. So I don't understand your statement.
Later,
Nat...@microsoft.com
These are my own words and may not represent the views of Microsoft.
Charles William Swiger
login when telnet .. by Nathan Pettigrew@microso
> concerned."? I don't know if this has been mentioned here before, but
> ftp.microsoft.com is a Windows NT 3.1 Advanced Server. So I don't
> understand your statement.
NT is a subset of Unix with regard to Internet support. Why?
Unix systems have things like the following that make the Internet work:
transparent GUI remotability of applications (under X, NEXTSTEP, etc)
gateway support (gated)
router support (routed)
Internet domain name service (named)
Andrew File System (AFS), and its successor, Distributed File System (DFS)
email (SMTP) and netnews (NNTP)
Sun's YP/NIS and NeXT's NetInfo for distributed system management
the World-Wide-Web (servers, not just clients)
distributed object support (NeXT's DO & PDO, CORBA, etc)
good SLIP, CSLIP, and PPP support (both client and server) for remote
Internet access over serial links
...plus the obvious
Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
telnet client & server
FTP client & server
NFS client & server
...that I understand NT also has.
So, Nathan, shall we consider again what Internet access means and what
support NT has for items in the first list?
-Chuck
Charles William Swiger - WhiteLight Systems | "All the world's a stage, and"
--------------------------------------------+ "we are merely players...."
AMS & normal mail: inf...@cmu.edu |
NeXTmail: ch...@cswiger.slip.andrew.cmu.edu | "Semper ubi sub ubi."
Tim Glauert
[ Followups to .advocacy where this belongs, please! ]
In article <AhzGtFO00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Charles William Swiger <infi...@CMU.EDU> writes:
|> Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy: 6-Jun-94 Re: UNIX
|> login when telnet .. by Nathan Pettigrew@microso
|> > "Windows NT 3.1 could not do what UNIX can as far as Internet access is
|> > concerned."
|>
|> Unix systems have things like the following that make the Internet work:
|>
|> transparent GUI remotability of applications (under X, NEXTSTEP, etc)
X servers are available for NT, X11R6 contains (free) client support
(which I have yet to get working :-)
|> gateway support (gated)
|> router support (routed)
NT does routing, but it is certainly not as good as Unix. However,
many sites, like ours, use custom-built routers for this jobs anyway.
|> Internet domain name service (named)
Coming with NT 3.5?
|> Andrew File System (AFS), and its successor, Distributed File System (DFS)
** See below
|> email (SMTP) and netnews (NNTP)
Client support is there, but not servers.
|> Sun's YP/NIS and NeXT's NetInfo for distributed system management
** See below
|> the World-Wide-Web (servers, not just clients)
Both are available.
|> distributed object support (NeXT's DO & PDO, CORBA, etc)
** See below
|> good SLIP, CSLIP, and PPP support (both client and server) for remote
|> Internet access over serial links
Possibly coming in NT 3.5. It is there, but I'm not sure you would
call it "good".
This items marked ** represent functionality that is used on the
internet, but is by no means required and is not "standard" on most
internet machines. An NT zealot might argue that Unix has poor support
for NBT (NetBios over TCP) which is as valid as support for AFS and
probably available on many more machines. (There are just *so many*
PCs out there!!)
Tim.
Leo L Turetsky
login when telnet .. by Nathan Pettigrew@microso
ftp.microsoft.com is
> a Windows
> NT 3.1 Advanced Server. So I don't understand your statement.
So what? My PC was an FTP server too. That doesn't mean I would like to
run DOS for FTPing. Doing and doing well are different things.
-Leo
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Leo Turetsky | l...@professor.pc.cc.cmu.edu |
| Sigma Nu | Carnegie-Mellon University |
| 1055 Morewood Ave. | Sophomore, ECE\CS Double Major |
| Pittsburgh, PA 15213 | "There can be only one! SigNu!" |
| (412) 862-2963 | SPIN VBHY? |
+----------------------esp---------------------------------+
Mike Lipsie MPU
>
>NT is a subset of Unix with regard to Internet support. Why?
>
>Unix systems have things like the following that make the Internet work:
>
>transparent GUI remotability of applications (under X, NEXTSTEP, etc)
>gateway support (gated)
>router support (routed)
>Internet domain name service (named)
>Andrew File System (AFS), and its successor, Distributed File System (DFS)
>email (SMTP) and netnews (NNTP)
>Sun's YP/NIS and NeXT's NetInfo for distributed system management
>the World-Wide-Web (servers, not just clients)
>distributed object support (NeXT's DO & PDO, CORBA, etc)
>good SLIP, CSLIP, and PPP support (both client and server) for remote
> Internet access over serial links
>
>
>So, Nathan, shall we consider again what Internet access means and what
>support NT has for items in the first list?
First, not one item on that list is a "Unix feature". Those are all
things that have been developed and added to some Unixes.
Second, X over the Internet???!?!? Are you trying to destroy it?
Third, many of those features are available as shareware or commercial
products from third parties on NT. It is a reasonable assumption
that Microsoft will provide some of them as NT matures.
If those are the only advantages Unix has over NT in networking, Unix
is in big trouble.
--
Mike Lipsie (work) mli...@ca.merl.com
Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratory (home) mi...@dosbears.UUCP
Leo L Turetsky
login when telnet .. by Mike Lipsie M...@rdm51.st
> things that have been developed and added to some Unixes.
That is the definition of a feature; when something is added to the
distribution it becomes a feature. In my Linux distribution, everything
on Chuck's list was included on the disks. I.e. they were all features.
> Second, X over the Internet???!?!? Are you trying to destroy it?
What? I'm running X over the Internet now. Seems alive to me. How many
times has your system crashed lately. Mine crashed once in the last 13
days. I.e. it's not destroyed.
> Third, many of those features are available as shareware or commercial
> products from third parties on NT. It is a reasonable assumption
> that Microsoft will provide some of them as NT matures.
As NT matures. Interesting. These things have been in Unix for five years.
> If those are the only advantages Unix has over NT in networking, Unix
> is in big trouble.
No NT is in trouble.
Chris Lang
>As NT matures. Interesting. These things have been in Unix for five years.
In other words, they were added to Unix some 15 years into its lifecycle.
Now if it takes NT 15 months to get the same features, you're saying
NT is maturing too slowly?
Granted, there is a case to be made that if one OS already has certain
features, a competing OS should have them as well when it becomes
available. But there is also a case to be made that the features an OS
includes should be determined by the wishes and needs of its users --
trying to guess beforehand which things to include and which to leave out
is bound to be somewhat inaccurate.
>> If those are the only advantages Unix has over NT in networking, Unix
>> is in big trouble.
>No NT is in trouble.
It's stupid to say either of them is in trouble. Why be stupid?
Of course, OS wars in general are stupid. Fortunately they make it easy
to see which people on a newsgroup aren't worth paying attention to.
Nobody ever did themselves a favor by listening to demagogues.
Followups to comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy so those of us who wish to
avoid bullshit can do so. (This is, after all, why advocacy groups
were created.)
-Chris
--
Chris Lang | Technology Integration, Inc.
chr...@ncms.org | 3025 Boardwalk
+1 313 995 4042 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108
Mike Lipsie MPU
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy: 14-Jun-94 Re: UNIX
>> >[first list - things NT does not have Unix equivalents of, snipped]
>> >
>> >[second list - things NT has Unix equivalents for, snipped]
>> >
>> things that have been developed and added to some Unixes.
>
>(I think you missed the point with this comment, Mike.)
Perhaps. It wouldn't be the first time. It thought the subject was
the innate superiority of Unix.
>> Second, X over the Internet???!?!? Are you trying to destroy it?
>
>No. What do you think the Internet is for, transmitting your .advocacy
>postings? Some people do work over the Internet. Hell, some people
>play X-Window games (netrek, xtank, etc ad nauseum) over the net.
Actually, I thought the major use of the net was transfering information.
X tends to put a lot of wrapping around that information. Doing
ftp is one thing, running vi is another. Perhaps the bandwidth of
the net is greater than I think.
>> Third, many of those features are available as shareware or commercial
>> products from third parties on NT.
>
>All right, name which features from the above list are available today
>on Windows NT!
Another poster did just that. As I recall, it was about 75%.
>> It is a reasonable assumption that Microsoft will provide some of them as
>> NT matures.
>
>I don't care what you consider "reasonable". I want to talk about
>what's really available today, not what may be available in some
>hypothetical future reality invented by Microsoft's marketing division.
I said that it was a reasonable assumption. It is. Unix is a thirty year
old operating system. Almost all of the features you listed are rather
recent. I suspect that Unix will still offer some new features in the
future. That too is a reasonable assumption. If I only supported an
operating system for what it offered *now*, I would still be advocating
OS/360.
>> If those are the only advantages Unix has over NT in networking, Unix
>> is in big trouble.
>
><snicker>
><chuckle>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>That's rich. I list off some of the most important and/or interesting
>things that make the Internet work (all available and working for
>*years* on Unix machines), and you use the words "only advantages"?
>
>Brave man. That's one of the funnier jokes I've seen anyone make at
>their own expense. You must have quite a sense of humor....
You did not list a single feature (except, perhaps, for the proprietary
products) that NT could not support today. On the current hardware
and software. In other words, Unix has no guarentee of superiority
and if, tomorrow, the hackers of the world were to implement your
entire list, I suppose you would concede defeat?
Go ahead. Laugh. And let's look at market share in five years.
Bruce Ediger
>Note that NT's RPC capabilities are generally much more robust than what
>you'll find with UNIX.
Horseshit. NT uses DCE RPC, which is widely available under UNIX.
Indeed, it's a "port" to both NT and UNIX, as DCE RPC was orginally
part of Apollo's NCS network computing environment.
DCE RPC is part of the OSF abortion, which time has revealed to be a sham
so that DEC and IBM could develop their own UNIXes. Fortunately for all
of us, OSF took DEC down with it.
Bruce Ediger
>Leo L Turetsky <profe...@CMU.EDU> writes:
>>As NT matures. Interesting. These things have been in Unix for five years.
>
>In other words, they were added to Unix some 15 years into its lifecycle.
>Now if it takes NT 15 months to get the same features, you're saying
>NT is maturing too slowly?
No, we're saying that everyone should resist the ridiculous bullshit/hype
eminating from the MicroSoft P.R. Department. NT had two purposes, one
of which is virtually a forgone conclusion:
1. Sucker punch an ailing Digital Equipment Corp by the same method
used on IBM: co-develop a piece of crap, then bail, leaving the other
party committed.
2. Perpetuate and Further MicroSoft World Domination by clouding the waters.
Remember, there's a sucker born every minute.
Jerry Leslie
Gee, I take it that there is no public domain, or third-party news reader
yet for Windows-NT ? I've followed this news group for 2-3 days, but
haven't seen one mentioned by name yet. Just that they were in abundance.
If DEC had replaced Ken Olson with a "visionary" technical person,
VMS would run on Intel Pentiums, PowerPC, MIPS R4400, as well as
VAX & ALPHAs. Instead DEC is spreading 'FUD' about VMS, and their
marketing droids are pushing OSF/1 as a replacement for the 'legacy'
VMS applications. Perhaps the DEC-er that's porting Linux to an ALPHA
(no joke) can save DEC from itself ?
Microsoft seems to be ignoring Windows-NT for the workstation/mini
markets. DEC is 'FUD'ding VMS to death, and the Unix vendors really
don't want to have a portable O/S, because they make $$$ from
selling their proprietary sects of Unix, and aren't anxious to have
a O/S from a standards group to cut into the $$$.
And the latest issue of "Windows Resources" has an article about
the murder of Windows-NT.
--Gerald (Jerry) R. Leslie
Staff Engineer
Dynamic Matrix Control Corporation (my opinions are my own)
P.O. Box 721648 9896 Bissonnet
Houston, Texas 77272 Houston, Texas, 77036
713/272-5065 713/272-5200 (fax)
gle...@isvsrv.enet.dec.com
jle...@dmccorp.com
Nathan Boyd
>
>NT is a subset of Unix with regard to Internet support. Why?
>
>Unix systems have things like the following that make the Internet work:
>
>transparent GUI remotability of applications (under X, NEXTSTEP, etc)
NT doesn't support this, but add-ons like PC X-View will at least allow you
to remotely run X apps, etc.
>gateway support (gated)
>router support (routed)
>Internet domain name service (named)
NTAS supports all of these.
>Andrew File System (AFS), and its successor, Distributed File System (DFS)
I believe one can get NFS services for NT.
As for AFS,DFS, etc., I'm not sure if NT has an answer...
>email (SMTP) and netnews (NNTP)
NTAS supports SMTP, I believe, though I'm not sure if there are any NNTP
servers for NT yet.
>Sun's YP/NIS and NeXT's NetInfo for distributed system management
Proprietary apps - not "UNIX".
>the World-Wide-Web (servers, not just clients)
Again, NTAS is a perfectly good WWW server; try www.microsoft.com,
>distributed object support (NeXT's DO & PDO, CORBA, etc)
Distributed OLE in '95.
>good SLIP, CSLIP, and PPP support (both client and server) for remote
> Internet access over serial links
NT supports SLIP and will shortly support PPP, I believe.
>...plus the obvious
>Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
>telnet client & server
>FTP client & server
>NFS client & server
>...that I understand NT also has.
Note that NT's RPC capabilities are generally much more robust than what
you'll find with UNIX.
>So, Nathan, shall we consider again what Internet access means and what
>support NT has for items in the first list?
NT seems to have all of the important bases covered.
Morever, NT excels in some areas, such as DHCP to automatically configure
IP addresses. Moreover, due to the nature of the NT/Windows applications
market, there are an abundant supply of NT/Windows Newsreaders, FTP servers
and clients, WWW servers and clients, etc. that all have great UI's that
render and UNIX equivalents I have seen obselete.
>-Chuck
>
>
>Charles William Swiger - WhiteLight Systems | "All the world's a stage, and"
>--------------------------------------------+ "we are merely players...."
>AMS & normal mail: inf...@cmu.edu |
>NeXTmail: ch...@cswiger.slip.andrew.cmu.edu | "Semper ubi sub ubi."
>
--
Nathan D. T. Boyd Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
bo...@sequent.com Beaverton, OR 97009
(503) 578-4506
Charles William Swiger
login when telnet .. by Mike Lipsie MPU:
> >gateway support (gated)
> >router support (routed)
> >Internet domain name service (named)
> >Andrew File System (AFS), and its successor, Distributed File System (DFS)
> >email (SMTP) and netnews (NNTP)
> >Sun's YP/NIS and NeXT's NetInfo for distributed system management
> >the World-Wide-Web (servers, not just clients)
> >distributed object support (NeXT's DO & PDO, CORBA, etc)
> >good SLIP, CSLIP, and PPP support (both client and server) for remote
> > Internet access over serial links
> >
> >[second list - things NT has Unix equivalents for, snipped]
> >
> >So, Nathan, shall we consider again what Internet access means and what
> >support NT has for items in the first list?
>
> First, not one item on that list is a "Unix feature". Those are all
> things that have been developed and added to some Unixes.
Right. They have not been developed and added to Windows NT.
(I think you missed the point with this comment, Mike.)
> Second, X over the Internet???!?!? Are you trying to destroy it?
No. What do you think the Internet is for, transmitting your .advocacy
postings? Some people do work over the Internet. Hell, some people
play X-Window games (netrek, xtank, etc ad nauseum) over the net.
> Third, many of those features are available as shareware or commercial
> products from third parties on NT.
All right, name which features from the above list are available today
on Windows NT!
> It is a reasonable assumption that Microsoft will provide some of them as
> NT matures.
I don't care what you consider "reasonable". I want to talk about
what's really available today, not what may be available in some
hypothetical future reality invented by Microsoft's marketing division.
> If those are the only advantages Unix has over NT in networking, Unix
> is in big trouble.
<snicker>
<chuckle>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That's rich. I list off some of the most important and/or interesting
things that make the Internet work (all available and working for
*years* on Unix machines), and you use the words "only advantages"?
Brave man. That's one of the funnier jokes I've seen anyone make at
their own expense. You must have quite a sense of humor....
-Chuck
Charles William Swiger
login when telnet .. by Mike Lipsie MPU:
RE: your comment about the topic of this thread
This developed out of a claim by a person at Microsoft that (paraphased)
Windows NT had the same level of Internet functionality as Unix systems.
> You did not list a single feature (except, perhaps, for the proprietary
> products) that NT could not support today.
The key words there are "could not". Try replacing them with "does not
currently".
You may hold whatever opinions you wish with regard to the future. I'm
simply not interested in discussing "might be's".
> On the current hardware and software. In other words, Unix has no
> guarentee of superiority and if, tomorrow, the hackers of the world were to
> implement your entire list, I suppose you would concede defeat?
"Concede defeat?" In what sense? I would be rather impressed,
actually. But that doesn't mean I would switch from Unix to Windows NT;
I know that Unix has more power and functionality today, and I like what
I'm using now (NEXTSTEP) much, much better then I liked using NT. I
don't expect this to change in the near future either.
> Go ahead. Laugh. And let's look at market share in five years.
I really don't care a whit about "market share". I'm far more
interested in the leading edge of the field of computer science. It
doesn't matter that there are 50+ million Windows 3.1 seats (or
whatever); the 5 million or so Unix seats represent far more creativity
and utility in terms of advancing research.
If it makes you happy to be one of the herd that (mistakenly) believes
that Microsoft represents the very best of the computing industry,
that's your concern.
Charles William Swiger
>
> Proprietary apps - not "UNIX".
Name a modern Unix system lacking one or both of the above and you might
have a point. I don't think you can....
[ blah ]
> >distributed object support (NeXT's DO & PDO, CORBA, etc)
>
> Distributed OLE in '95.
The date is June 14, 1994, Nathan.
Leave your M$ marketing hype elsewhere.
> >good SLIP, CSLIP, and PPP support (both client and server) for remote
> > Internet access over serial links
>
> NT supports SLIP and will shortly support PPP, I believe.
As a server? Again, this is only half a loaf (no CSLIP or PPP) even if
the answer is "yes".
> >...plus the obvious
> >Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
> >telnet client & server
> >FTP client & server
> >NFS client & server
> >...that I understand NT also has.
>
> Note that NT's RPC capabilities are generally much more robust than what
> you'll find with UNIX.
Care to dignify this claim with some evidence?
Sun Microsystems, Inc *developed* RPC for NFS and YP/NIS (among other
things). I simply don't believe you if you claim a 1.0 OS has better
support for RPC then Sun's unless you provide some reproducable evidence.
> >So, Nathan, shall we consider again what Internet access means and what
> >support NT has for items in the first list?
>
> NT seems to have all of the important bases covered.
For your usage, maybe. That ain't good enough for me.
> Morever, NT excels in some areas, such as DHCP to automatically configure
> IP addresses.
Old trick, that. Every heard of bootpd and tftp(d)?
> Moreover, due to the nature of the NT/Windows applications
> market, there are an abundant supply of NT/Windows Newsreaders, FTP servers
> and clients, WWW servers and clients, etc. that all have great UI's that
> render and UNIX equivalents I have seen obselete.
"you have seen" != "are available". Go take at look at the options for
the above under a single OS such as NEXTSTEP. I have yet to see a
Microsoft product with a elegant, clean, easy-to-use, easy-to-understand
interface.
God knows neither MS-Windows 3.1 nor Windows NT even come close!
Michael James Gebis
>Second, X over the Internet???!?!? Are you trying to destroy it?
Actually, the original designers of the 'net thought that the majority
of traffic would be inter-process communication, IE things like X.
--
Mike Gebis m-g...@uiuc.edu Mean people suck.
http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~mg7932/mike.html
Beverly J. Brown
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy: 14-Jun-94 Re: UNIX
> login when telnet .. by Mike Lipsie M...@rdm51.st
> > First, not one item on that list is a "Unix feature". Those are all
> > things that have been developed and added to some Unixes.
>
> That is the definition of a feature; when something is added to the
> distribution it becomes a feature. In my Linux distribution, everything
> on Chuck's list was included on the disks. I.e. they were all features.
>
> > Second, X over the Internet???!?!? Are you trying to destroy it?
>
> What? I'm running X over the Internet now. Seems alive to me. How many
> times has your system crashed lately. Mine crashed once in the last 13
> days. I.e. it's not destroyed.
I've been running NT since November and the only time it has ever crashed
was when I did something stupid in a device driver I was writing. And no, my
system wasn't destroyed when it happened.
>
> > Third, many of those features are available as shareware or commercial
> > products from third parties on NT. It is a reasonable assumption
> > that Microsoft will provide some of them as NT matures.
>
> As NT matures. Interesting. These things have been in Unix for five years.
>
Unix is mature.
> > If those are the only advantages Unix has over NT in networking, Unix
> > is in big trouble.
>
> No NT is in trouble.
>
There's room for both markets. You simply pick the OS that meets your needs
(and/or/ wallet :) )
Beverly J. Brown
b...@shore.net
bev...@datacube.com
Death roll - Been there, done that...
>That is the definition of a feature; when something is added to the
>distribution it becomes a feature. In my Linux distribution, everything
>on Chuck's list was included on the disks. I.e. they were all features.
Does AFS really come with Linux, Doc? I thought it has become a commercial
product.
Tom O'Toole - ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu - JHUVMS system programmer
Homewood Computing Facilities - Johns Hopkins University, Balto. Md. 21218
Disco music makes it possible to have 'disco entertainment centers',
where dull, boring people can meet, and reproduce. - Frank
Charles William Swiger
login when telnet .. by Death r. - B. there@jhuv
> .EDU> writes...
> >That is the definition of a feature; when something is added to the
> >distribution it becomes a feature. In my Linux distribution, everything
> >on Chuck's list was included on the disks. I.e. they were all features.
>
> Does AFS really come with Linux, Doc? I thought it has become a commercial
> product.
AFS is a commercial product (of Transarc, which is a spinoff company of CMU).
However, being a member of the CMU community gives one access to lots of
things like that either "for free" (ie, plus tutition) or at low cost.
Leo L Turetsky
login when telnet .. by Death r. - B. there@jhuv
> DU> writes...
> >That is the definition of a feature; when something is added to the
> >distribution it becomes a feature. In my Linux distribution, everything
> >on Chuck's list was included on the disks. I.e. they were all features.
>
> Does AFS really come with Linux, Doc? I thought it has become a commercial
> product.
Why are you being petty? Fine it doesn't come with AFS. Now for the 99%
percent of the things Chuck mentioned...
Anyway, AFS is freeware, I have it.
> Tom O'Toole - ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu - JHUVMS system programmer
> Homewood Computing Facilities - Johns Hopkins University, Balto. Md. 21218
> Disco music makes it possible to have 'disco entertainment centers',
> where dull, boring people can meet, and reproduce. - Frank
Chris Tilbury
: NT is a subset of Unix with regard to Internet support. Why?
: Unix systems have things like the following that make the Internet work:
: transparent GUI remotability of applications (under X, NEXTSTEP, etc)
There are a number of commercial X Servers available, some of which come
with the necessary libraries for client support. In addition, it's possible
to compile the X11 R6 client libraries for NT. [This doesn't mean of course
that you can display a standard windows application on another display.
You _could_ write one that would though.]
: gateway support (gated)
: router support (routed)
: Internet domain name service (named)
: Andrew File System (AFS), and its successor, Distributed File System (DFS)
I don't really know enough about these to comment. I can't imagine they'd
be impossible to provide however.
: email (SMTP) and netnews (NNTP)
SMTP & NNTP Services are part of the 94/95 workplan for EMWAC, as are
POP3 and IMAP Services.
: Sun's YP/NIS and NeXT's NetInfo for distributed system management
System Management Services (formerly "Hermes") sound like they'd fit in
here (though, I think they are still "vapourware")
: the World-Wide-Web (servers, not just clients)
Gopher (Gophers), WWW (Https) Services available (if only in binary format)
from EMWAC. As is a Wais service & toolkit.
: distributed object support (NeXT's DO & PDO, CORBA, etc)
Nothing to do with the Internet, specifically (not to say they won't
be used with the Internet or that they won't both be very useful).
: good SLIP, CSLIP, and PPP support (both client and server) for remote
: Internet access over serial links
I think SLIP support is in 3.5. Unfortunately, from what I've heard, it's
less than perfect.
: ...plus the obvious
: Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
: telnet client & server
: FTP client & server
: NFS client & server
: ...that I understand NT also has.
NT doesn't have a telnet "server" as standard, although a number of
rlogin services are available. The standard telnet "client" in 3.1
is too dire for words. Likewise, NFS clients and servers are availiable
commercially only at present (though M$ do hint at some form of
"Unix Connectivity Services" in the release notes of the final NetWare
client, so they may be coming as standard sometime).
Also part of the EMWAC "Workplan" are a
fingerd service, inetd service, kerberos service, ntp service.
[EMWAC, for the unfamiliar, is the "European Microsoft Windows Academic
Centre", which is sponsored by M$, Digital an number of other vendors]
Chris [Who'd stick a UNIXen on his PC if he didn't have to use
M$ apps all the time, so makes do with the next best thing (IMHO)]
--
.........................................................................
Chris Tilbury, Systems Support, Estates Office, University of Warwick, UK
C.J.T...@warwick.ac.uk Tel: +44 203 52 3430 Fax: +44 203 52 4444
Poke <A href="http://aspen.estate.warwick.ac.uk/users/chris.html">me!</a>
Charles William Swiger
login when telnet .. by Chris Til...@csv.warwic
>
> There are a number of commercial X Servers available, some of which come
> with the necessary libraries for client support. In addition, it's possible
> to compile the X11 R6 client libraries for NT. [This doesn't mean of course
> that you can display a standard windows application on another display.
> You _could_ write one that would though.]
To which I ask: how many commercial X applications are available for
Windows NT? Do I hear "zero"?
David Charles Leblanc
>To which I ask: how many commercial X applications are available for
>Windows NT? Do I hear "zero"?
I believe PVWave just released an NT version. There may be others,
but I'm not very familiar with what is available in X.
--
David Charles LeBlanc
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
Internet: gt6...@acme.gatech.edu
Death roll - Been there, done that...
>Why are you being petty? Fine it doesn't come with AFS. Now for the 99%
>percent of the things Chuck mentioned...
>
>Anyway, AFS is freeware, I have it.
Oops! You assumed my question was rhetorical. Anyway, someone else answered it.
Tom O'Toole - ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu - JHUVMS system programmer
Homewood Computing Facilities - Johns Hopkins University, Balto. Md. 21218
Arrr, there's a worthy vessel! Surely this is the yarest craft I've ever set
eyes on... Arrr, I don't know what I'm talking about... - the 'captain'
Michael Webb
>No NT is in trouble.
NT's future has little to do with UNIX-style utilities, and more to
being part of the future of the Windows family. UNIX lost the
mass market years ago - the Windows family sells the installed base
of a major unix vendor every month.
This only issue that remains is whether the how many the the niche
UNIX markets will be absorbed by the Windows family. Traditional
niches are being nibbled away all the time
Mike Webb
Michael Webb
>No, we're saying that everyone should resist the ridiculous bullshit/hype
>eminating from the MicroSoft P.R. Department. NT had two purposes, one
>of which is virtually a forgone conclusion:
50million installed base of Windows - no one is forcing these guys
to use the stuff. Its only hype if you don't deliver - Microsoft
has. NT and Chicago just provides the next step.
>1. Sucker punch an ailing Digital Equipment Corp by the same method
> used on IBM: co-develop a piece of crap, then bail, leaving the other
> party committed.
50million customers. Are you saying that it would be better to DEC
to walk away from those customers ?
>2. Perpetuate and Further MicroSoft World Domination by clouding the waters.
> Remember, there's a sucker born every minute.
Microsoft application products tend normally to get the top scores
in product reviews. There's no one forcing these people to buy the
stuff.
Mike Webb
Michael Webb
> I have yet to see a Microsoft product with a elegant, clean,
> easy-to-use, easy-to-understand interface.
From market share figures it appears that you are in a minority.
I've yet to see better products that Word and Excel. Most product
reviews would agree.
Mike Webb
Charles William Swiger
> l...@CMU.EDU) writes:
>
> > I have yet to see a Microsoft product with a elegant, clean,
> > easy-to-use, easy-to-understand interface.
>
> From market share figures it appears that you are in a minority.
Excuse me, but what does market share have to do with the quality of the
interface design?
> I've yet to see better products that Word and Excel. Most product
> reviews would agree.
Both could use some serious graphical redesign by someone who
understands user interfaces. The MS-Windows interface should be
abandoned and redone entirely; as it stands, Windows looks like a
caricature of the Mac.
Michael James Gebis
>Both could use some serious graphical redesign by someone who
>understands user interfaces. The MS-Windows interface should be
>abandoned and redone entirely;
Isn't that the what Chicago does?
Brian Chase
:
: > I have yet to see a Microsoft product with a elegant, clean,
: > easy-to-use, easy-to-understand interface.
: From market share figures it appears that you are in a minority.
: I've yet to see better products that Word and Excel. Most product
: reviews would agree.
market share figures? "More people are buying Word & Excel because they are
better..." Uh uh... More people are buying it because both are widely
advertised and because there are so many Windows machines up and running.
Let us talk, as MS often does, in the land of "what if / maybe", but only
for just a little while... Let's now go back, quite magically, to the time
when each and every seperate one those 50,000,000-can't-be-wrong-very-
satisfied-MS-customers first were introduced to Windows. What if all those
people at that same time were given the same opportunity to use OS/2, Macs,
NeXTstep, or even some Unix with an X-flavor GUI. I know that's a pretty
big "what if" but use your imaginationation. Now, I wonder how happy those
users would be with MS when being able to work with some of the other GUIs
available?
About how many of the 50,000,000 Windows users do you actually think have
ever used any other OS than DOS a la Windows? 5%? 10%? 15%? I wouldn't
say many more than that. Or how many do you think even *know* that other
OSes apart from [DOS|Win|NT] exist? 50%? 60%? Maybe.
The point is, that maybe, if more of the MS users actually knew what was
available then there wouldn't be so many MS users.
Okay, out of the Land of Make Believe and back to the regular scheduled
Real World(tm) where Microsoft is best (according to market share figures
which we know absolutely reflect in exponential proportion the quality of
the software being sold.)
-brian.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Chase -VoodooMagick-C-Hacker "..you're just another small-time jerk who
cha...@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu doesn't know the meaing [sic] of the
933...@itdsrv1.ul.ie words `Real World.'" -- Jemearl Smith
Graeme Gill
>To which I ask: how many commercial X applications are available for
>Windows NT? Do I hear "zero"?
Possibly a reflection on NTs acceptance as an OS ?
Graeme Gill.
Ethan Evan Prater
: In article <QhzWOEy00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Charles William Swiger
: (infi...@CMU.EDU) writes:
What do product reviews have to do with interfaces? And whence all of
these reviews you keep touting? PeeCee Magazine, or one of its Ziff-Davis
siblings? No advertising influence there.
--
Ethan Evan Prater
h935...@obelix.wu-wien.ac.at
Charles William Swiger
login when telnet .. by Michael James Gebis@uxa.
>
> >Both could use some serious graphical redesign by someone who
> >understands user interfaces. The MS-Windows interface should be
> >abandoned and redone entirely;
>
> Isn't that the what Chicago does?
Is it? (I honestly don't know.)
If so, good.