Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uhccux!tholen
From: tholen@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (David Tholen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: (Sigh) Here we go again...
Message-ID: <12855@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: 5 May 91 00:21:13 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
Lines: 34

Kevin Lowey writes:

> I think he is saying that with Unix, you can dial in and log into the 
> computer, then use something like Kermit to download the files, or run Unix
> programs remotely.  Of course, you can't run X applications (unless you have 
> slip support) so you are limited to strictly command line / terminal apps.
> 
> The OS/2 solution to that is the shareware program OS2YOU, which is sort of a 
> PC-Anywhere clone.  You can use it to connect to your OS/2 station using 
> a serial line, or a named pipe on a LAN.  The access is password protected.  
> 
> This can make OS/2 multi-user.  Each user is limited to running text
> applications (no PM apps) but that is the same as most dialup unix boxes. 
> The other main difference is that anyone who gains access gets FULL access
> to OS/2, as there is no idea of separate user privileges/directories like
> there is on Unix.  Everyone who connects is a superuser.

Not if you use Hilgraeve's HyperACCESS/5 communications program.  It
features password protection, and the user can limit a caller's access
to specific directories.  You can set different access privileges for
different users with different passwords.  It is limited to running text
applications, however.  The point of all this is that UNIX and OS/2 offer
similar capabilities in this area, so it shouldn't be used as a reason for
preferring UNIX over OS/2.  In this particular case, it appears that the
previous poster's unfamiliarity with OS/2 and its available applications is
responsible for a misjudgment in the relative merits of the two operating
systems.  I'm not trying to claim that OS/2 is better than UNIX, nor am I
going to claim that UNIX is better than OS/2.  They are different.  UNIX
is not for everybody, but neither is OS/2, as I said before.  It just
bothers me when somebody claims that UNIX is better than OS/2 because OS/2
can't do such-and-such, when I know that OS/2 can do such-and-such, so I
feel compelled to defend it, but that shouldn't be taken as a blanket
recommendation.  If the situation were reversed, I'd also be compelled
to defend UNIX.