🚀 go-pugleaf

I read this article carefully several times looking for the tongue in cheek,
and have concluded that the author is perfectly straight-faced. So i respond.

In article <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
>...  For example, to display a file under DOS, I use
>'type' or the near-universal bit of freeware 'd'. That's lots
>easier to remember than 'cat.'

I am mystified by this claim. Please attempt to justify it.
I expect you either to concede that the claim is nonsense,
or to splutter for a while, and then concede.

>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.

1.	If you have a real operating system, then users cannot crash
	the box. OS/2 may yet reach this level of maturity.

2.	Without the access protection provided by a multiuser system,
	it is impossible to connect to a network while being as discriminating
	in the sharing of data as many users and organizations demand.
-- 
     ||  // // ,'/~~\'   T. J. Thompson                        tj@mks.com
    /||/// //|' `\\\     Mortice Kern Systems Inc.         (519) 884-2251
   / | //_// ||\___/     35 King St. N., Waterloo, Ont., Can. N2J 2W9
O_/                                long time(); /* know C */