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