taylor (02/20/83)
The following are some comments I have received after submitting an
article stating that I felt single-user UNIX[1] was the direction
that the software houses should be moving in.
Further comments are more than welcome, and Yes, I have slightly
edited these letters, so those of you who wrote to me, and see mere
fragments of your letters....flame on (actually, I took the parts that
are relevent to this discussion only...)
Without further ado, then;
--- Dave Taylor
..sdcsvax!taylor
-----
[1] Note: UNIX is a trademark of Bell Telephone Labs and is *evil laugh*
used without express written or spoken permission. (oh well!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From allegra!jdd Wed Feb 9 09:43:55 1983
Subject: Single-User UNIX
I have a single-user UNIX, and find it quite helpful to have a
distinction between jdd and root, so that I can't mung things
accidentally.
Cheers,
John DeTreville
Bell Labs, Murray Hill
(P.S.: Neither jdd nor root has a password.)
>From houxg!cas Fri Feb 11 08:02:24 1983
Subject: single user unix
I think that you are right when you say
there is a demand for a single user unix
system. And I think there will be such
things in the future. The reason there
aren't any now is that the software
suppliers were trying to maximize their
market for the minimum effort.
Cliff Stevens
...!lime!houxe!cliff
...!lime!houxg!cas
>From cca!cfh Fri Feb 11 08:16:47 1983
Subject: multi user unix
I can think of two reasons for preserving multi-user:
1. Most of the truly expensive features, such as the multi-tasking
scheduler, are useful to single users. I don't think protection costs
all that much since it is only invoked when opening a file.
2. You may want to let multiple user serially use a single
workstation.
>From yale-comix!bj Fri Feb 11 08:45:46 1983
Subject: Re: Why not a multi-tasking single user UN*X ???
Think how much faster it would be; no problem
checking for protection (in fact 'chmod' and the entire protection
scheme could be tossed out the proverbial window!) and the user name tc
when doing an 'ls'....and so on...and so on.
I would want my personal computer to be a "single user" system, but would
not want to give up /etc/passwd and would not consider a system without
a protection system.
The main reason that I use protection is to prevent errors. I want the ability
to make sure that I don't write over a file by accident. And with separate
user ids I can make sure that I make a consious effort before I touch the
system sources. In fact, I would like a more powerfull protection scheme
than UN*X has -- I would like to mark files so they can not be deleted but
can be written, or so they can not be written, but can be appended to.
The main reason that I would want UN*X on my own computer is because
of the power of the system (ie the command shell, the file/program structure
the available languages, etc) and the (GREAT) ability to send tasks to the
'background'...
There is some overhead involved in the protection scheme, but more overhead
is involved in multi-tasking. If you want to remove a lot of junk from UNIX,
that would be a better place to start. But please, don't try to sell me
UNIX after you have touched multi-tasking or protection.
Taking out protection would not make UNIX much faster -- it would only have
a small effect on opening files. The time required is small compared to
the disk read time. When you have a dedicated 16MHz 68000, you won't notice
the difference.
B.J.
decvax!yale-comix!herbison-bj
Herbison-BJ@Yale (Not currently)
>From microsof!henryb Fri Feb 11 15:17:33 1983
Subject: net.micro.pc; Why not a multi-tasking single user UN*X?
Hi,
Yes, that sounds good. As usual, we can't say what we are doing
until it is done. In almost every case we are doing almost what you would
expect us to do.
Henry W. Burgess
(decvax!microsoft!henryb)
>From sentry1!zemon Fri Feb 11 22:19:00 1983
Subject: protections under single user UNIX
You mentioned in your article that you would do away with
the protections of UNIX on a personal workstation. I
disagree. You could get rid of the group and "other"
stuff, but the idea of an owner can protect an unwary user
from accidentally removing, for example, /bin/sh!
-- Art Z. =16730=
>From hp-pcd!keith Fri Feb 11 22:22:45 1983
Subject: Multitasking-Single User
I heartily agree. I don't really understand some of these small multiuser
systems that are coming out.
I guess that the direction I would like to see is one in which powerful
single user systems communicate and share work via some networking scheme.
The catch is that no one can agree on the network.
In an office automation type of context, I can envision a network of small
systems running dissimilar applications, but still capable of sharing work
and information (don't ask me how; I am just dreaming).
Perhaps there is a market for 3-user micros as the small business world begins
to adopt the computer, but I suspect that once the industry settles on
standardized network hardware and software, that that market may go away.
Keith M. Taylor
Corvallis, Oregon
hp-pcd!keith
>From parsec!kolstad Sat Feb 12 20:45:44 1983
Subject: single user systems
Of course that's single user AT A TIME. You probably wouldnt use the
work station 24 hours/day. The cost of the multiuser capabilities
(/etc/passwd, etc) is very low compared to the cost of multitasking.
(In fact on UNIX, it is virtually free).
Sooo... single user at-a-time workstations may in fact have serial
uses by different people. Businesswise it makes sense, even if not
hobby wise.
More uncopyrighted speculation from Dalls.....Rk
>From tucc!hes Thu Feb 17 23:36:29 1983
Subject: Re: sdcsvax.117: Why not a multi-tasking single user UN*X ???
Dave, I agree with you completely. I think that the general drift towards
multiuser systems is a misuse of hardware and software. (There are exception,
as for business use handling several clerk's input, etc.) If the sharing
is done at the file-server level then we can use single-user workstations
as you mentioned and get greater reliability, speed, etc. --henry schaffer
>From lanl-a!crs Fri Feb 18 12:00:12 1983
Subject: single user UN*X
I agree with you; I would love to have a HOME computer with UN*X but I
don't need a multiuser system (although it could be nice to let the kids
play while I work!). It looks to me as though the next year or so may
see a lot of new stuff in the home/personal computer hardware area.
How difficult would it be for a company to come up with something
affordable that ran a single user UN*X? I have only been using UN*X
for a few month but I LIKE it. I would also, if I had occasion to
use one, like a workstation that ran UN*X.
I am primarily a hardware type (not necessarily computer hardware) so there
is a lot I don't know about software. On the other hand I have done some
programing (mostly FORTRAN and Pascal) and have used several operating
systems although my use is on again/off again as a means to an end.
I have access to UN*X because it is a multiuser system but now that I've
tried it I want it. Your closing comment about wanting UN*X on your own
computer because of its power and the background job capability is well
taken. Further, it seems to me, is that it appears to be a very useable
system. I can do things with it EASILY and it seems to have been
comparatively easy to learn to do so. I hope you are successful. I would
appreciate a summary (or even a copy) of response to your article and an
occasional update.
Charlie Sorsby
...!lanl-a!crs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
post-comment: I think that a number of good points are brought up in the
above letters...the most important being that different people have a
different idea of what a single-station computer should do...
My personal ideal system is a machine that only I use (money? wnat's
that??) that is local-area hooked up to a huge main-frame system that has
all the resources/file space etcetera that I could ever want, yet still is
only needed UPON DEMAND (so that if it dies, I mererly don't use it as a
resource.) Given this, I think that having any sort of login other than
the initial password (ie checking modes etcetera) would be too much work.
Rather, for files that I didn't want to write over, or what-have-you, I
would prefer a revamped security system that didn't even care WHO I was,
just that I am not the machine...ie there are three levels of protection;
r/w, r/alterable-w and r-only, where files like /bin/csh would be the
third, and I could NEVER change the protection so that I could never write
over it (or to it!), files that I wanted to keep, but perhaps some time
in the future would want to alter (like ~/mbox, perhaps) would be the
second protection type -- no write access other than update, but changeable
to whatever wanted (note: I could change a file to mode 2 and back, but
not (??) to mode 3 and back (needs to be worked out, perhaps when the
system is installed...)). Garbage files that I don't care too much about
(my usual mode) would be mode 1.
*phew*
Any thoughts on THAT??
(flames are okay, but not too hot...)
-- Dave