Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!mailrus!ncar!ico!vail!rcd
From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix (multiuser issue)
Summary: some feature
Message-ID: <1989Dec20.203407.1000@ico.isc.com>
Date: 20 Dec 89 20:34:07 GMT
References: <260@ndla.UUCP> <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>
Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation, Boulder, CO
Lines: 25

jmann@bigbootay (Jim Mann) writes:
...
> As for the fact that OS/2 is multi tasking but not multiuser, I consider
> this a feauture, not a bug.  I think that one of the great advances in
> computers in the last 10 years has been that everyone can have his/her
> own box (with no other users to do things to crash it) but still be connected
> to a network allowing data sharing as desired.

This argument is backwards.  If you want to have a UNIX box per person,
that's just fine.  We do it here; we also have network connections so that
the machines can get to one another and to servers.  A multi-user system
doesn't *require* multiple users on the machine.

OS/2 (and DOS), however, require a machine per user, whether you really
need it or not.  Why should my wife and I have to buy two machines (plus
network cards?!?) just so we can occasionally work at home at the same
time?  With UNIX, we've got just one, and everything is in one place. 
Moreover, we only have to worry about a place to put one machine, power
for one, backups for one, etc., etc.

The issue of a user crashing the machine just doesn't arise if you've got
decent protection and a real operating system underneath you.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com    uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd     (303)449-2870
   ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.