Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!ahds!dick
From: dick@ahds.ahold.nl (Dick Heijne CCS/TS)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ncr
Subject: Re: shadow passwd in Tower 500 OS 1.01.02
Message-ID: <2004@ahds.ahold.nl>
Date: 24 Jun 91 15:59:42 GMT
References: <1991Jun21.202108.18914@bohtsg.UUCP> <1975@safn2.UUCP>
Organization: Ahold NV, Zaandam, Netherlands, EEC
Lines: 21

In article <1975@safn2.UUCP>, rey@safn2.UUCP (rey) writes:
> In article <1991Jun21.202108.18914@bohtsg.UUCP>, art@bohtsg.pegasus.com (Art Neilson) writes:
| > "We liked sa a lot more than va"
> Did it come from ATT?
> What was(is) the point? sa was pretty good I thought.
> Do any 3rd party software vendors supply va installable product, or is it
> 	an NCR exclusive?
> Do the 3000 machines use va? is it part of V.4?
> Would va give me a head start in any later migration?
Both sa and va are NCR products.
Va has all kinds of rubbish like reverse fields, windowscopes and other
childish stuff, that obviously charmed some Manager, who desparetly
needs a promotion to some island in the Pacific.
Indeed, sa was far more transparent than va and better managable.
It also *worked* fine. After a few years, va still suffers from
bugs like not restoring the generated keycodes after operation etc.
Also, the logic is very dumb and slow.
The #$%^ with va, give us sa back!!

Dick.
~a