Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!bywater!arnor!ibmman!larrys From: larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc Subject: Re: (Sigh) Here we go again... Message-ID: <1991May6.171453.9731@watson.ibm.com> Date: 6 May 91 17:13:22 GMT References: Sender: larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com Reply-To: larrys@yktvmv Organization: IBM Research Lines: 29 News-Software: NewsKit 1.2 - LaMail Nntp-Posting-Host: ibmman In , hundt@samadams.princeton.edu (Tom Hundt) writes: > >[Arguments of Unix vs. OS/2 deleted.] > >Guys, the big thing that Unix has that I like, that is missing from >OS/2, is that it's multi*user* (and not just multi*tasking*)! > >OS/2 is missing the whole multiple user concept, what with >directories, security, etc. This, to me, is why one might call >OS/2 a "baby" operating system. (Macintosh has the same shortcoming.) Agreed. But there is a company based in Florida that has a multiuser version of OS/2 running text-only applications. I can't remember the name of the company. BTW: if you call Unix' file/directory protection "real security", then I've got swamp-land you can buy. Check out VMS for real security. Of course, what Unix has now is better than what OS/2 doesn't have... ;) Cheers, Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET OS/2 Applications and Tools larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com IBM T.J. Watson Research Center larrys@eng.clemson.edu Yorktown Heights, NY Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too seriously.