🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <28655@cup.portal.com>, Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) writes:
> Everything I have read about OS/2 2.0 makes it sound very exciting.  However,
> Microsoft's decision to not support VCPI means that millions of Lotus users,
> 386-to-the-Max users, and users of products based on DOS/16M and other DOS-
> extender products will not be inclined to upgrade to OS/2.  

The problem is that under VCPI, the various applications run in "ring 0
protected mode".  This means that there is no memory management protection
and no security against such an application.

For those with UNIX experience, this is the equivalent of running any
application that asks for it in supervisor mode.  Just think how easy this
will make it for any application to fiddle the system any way that it wants.
And how easy to write a virus that reads or changes any file anywhere -
he just asks to run in ring 0 and then helps himself.

There was recently a discussion of virus and worm protection and file system
security.  OS/2 could NEVER have protection if we supported VCPI.  This
means that it will never be successful in a corporate environment because
no company is going to trust their critical operational data to a totally
insecure operating system, one where anybody can read or write any data
at any time.

Further, if OS/2 supported VCPI we'd soon be in the DOS "ram cram" situation
where all these various products fight with each other because they're
doing funny things to the operating environment.  Any any errors in any
of these applications will cause your machine to crash, if you're lucky,
or just to become flakey otherwise.  How can OS/2 be successful if a
user who has a half dozen favorite VCPI applications finds that he gets
his files corrupted every week or so?  Even if he doesn't blame OS/2, 
it would take a genius to figure out which app was doing the damage,
if it's an intermittant problem.

	gordon letwin
	microsoft