Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:12:41 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Terry Lambert" <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: "f.johan.beisser" <jan@caustic.org>, "FreeBSD Chat" <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: UNIX on the Desktop (was: Re: Why no Indians and Arabs?) Message-ID: <003301c186eb$bf1e8710$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <20011216112759.U16958-100000@localhost> <002f01c1866e$1e4d9510$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C1DB7EB.9232204A@mindspring.com> <001101c186dd$5ab94430$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C1DCDAC.CEA3DEAF@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry writes: > Actually, it was designed as a single user > Multics replacement to serve as a loader > and emulator for already written "space war" > and other games for PDP hardware ... By the time it gained any widespread use, it was designed as a multiuser timesharing system. > You really need to read a history of UNIX ... I'm familiar with the history of UNIX. A glance at the architecture of UNIX as it has been for the past two decades or so reveals a multiuser, text-based timesharing system, not a dedicated, single-user desktop. > If you have followed the evolution of CIFS > over the years, you would know that there is > now the possibility of passing credential > information over a single multiplex channel > to a file server. Single-user desktops do not necessarily communicate with file servers. They may not communicate with anything at all. > Please do not confuse "single user" with > "single credential". I'm not. See above. Credentials are only meaningful in multiuser environments, however. In a single-user environment, everyone always has the same credentials, so they become irrelevant. > FWIW: I uses to run DOS machines "multiuser", > using a timer based TSR facility and the serial > port redirection available to handle COM port > based I/O, which surfaces in MS-DOS 2.11 (I > did this on Leading Edge 8086 boxes). The > resulting machines were "multiuser", > but NOT "multicredentialed". Most people did not do this, so your comment is irrelevant. > THere's really nothing inconvenient about > credential enforcement, when it is done > correctly. It requires more effort than no credential enforcement, whether it is done correctly or not. And it is often unnecessary. > So even without "multiuser" or "multicredential", > I get the same level of enforcement that yo state > is the primary reason to not have "multiuser" or > "multicredential" support in a desktop. You are not representative. > Then you were well aware that Windows was not > an intrinsic part of the OS, but was instead an > application program that ran as a graphical > user shell, capable of "fork/exec" type > operations, and that you boot to DOS, not Windows, > and the Windows startup has more to do with the > initial command loaded being "command" or "win". Yes, I am, which makes me wonder why you feel compelled to explain it. > Of course, since once again, they defeat your > binary view of the universe... 8^). No, they simply aren't significant players. Nobody cares about Lindows, except maybe Lindows, Inc. > Sure. That's what scripting languages are for. > Most people don't need to do that sort of thing, > though, for a non-enterprise installation ... And those who don't are not system administrators, and thus do not require a graphic interface to these functions, either. > ... and even if they do, the number of people > they have to support is small enough that they > can "live with the pain" of GUI administration. If it is painful, then it is not as convenient as you first asserted, is it? > I rather expect Apple to start selling rack-mount > systems as OS/X becomes more popular... I don't. They've modified the system too much and turned it away from a server application. Besides, it would not be in line with their sacred mission. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?003301c186eb$bf1e8710$0a00000a>