Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hptsug2!taylor From: macey@praxis.UUCP (Ian Macey) Newsgroups: comp.society Subject: Re: "Personal" Computers Message-ID: <533@hptsug2.HP.COM> Date: 23 Sep 88 01:36:13 GMT Sender: taylor@hptsug2.HP.COM Organization: Praxis Systems plc, Bath, UK Lines: 89 Approved: taylor@hplabs Travis Marlatte writes: > In response to my statement that a personal computer does not need to > be available only to one user, Ian Macey says: ( Battle of the dictionary quotes edited out ) Travis then says: > I contend that a personal computer does not have to be portable or > singular. Could I not have a multi-user system in my home - terminals > (of some sort) in every room; interfaced to the security system, the > phone system, and household appliances. My whole family uses it - > without regard for who might be using it in the next room. This sure > seems like a personal system to me! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ooops!!! What's this... looks like we're no longer using a personal computer, but some sort of system! The plot thickens... On singularity I said: Think of a login on a multi-user system as an automobile on the road network. Your login = your personal transport (ie your personal automobile). However the machine = the road network, and there's no way you can say you use a personal road network - it's shared with other users (automobile drivers)! My friend Travis hacks it to bits with: > Woops! Did I here PERSONAL automobile? Does this mean that my login > gives me some personal characteristics - even on a multi-user > system? You bet! Personal enough? NO! Yes, I'll agree you can personalize your login environment. However I think the analogy needs clearing up: > Why is the machine the road network? If we must continue this > strange analogy, my login is my car key, No, your key is your password. > the machine is the automobile, No, your personal login environment (ie the shell you are running, your aliases etc. are the automobile. In case of doubt consider Travis's next statement: > the computer network is the road network. Using Travis's argument so far we get automobile == the machine, and the road system == the computer network, then his arguement states that he moves the machine around the computer network... Travis, have you ever tried forcing a VAX 8000 series down a telephone cable? (They don't like it you know.) However, try doing a remote login down a telephone cable and you'll have fewer problems (if you have the right key/password). Thus in the analogy, automobile == login environment. HENCE: Sure, on a multi-user system you can have a personal login. *But* the computer is *not* personal, because it's not only for (back to my dictionary) 'a particular person', or 'individual'. It's for many people, hence the HARDWARE itself cannot be your personal computer - only a SOFTWARE environment running on a multi user system can ever be personal. This appears to be the point of debate. On a multiuser computer you can have 'personal' software, but the computer hardware itself is not your personal bit of hardware. THUS a personal computer is one with only one user. Finally Travis writes: > I restate - without hesitation - that my definition of a personal > computer is one that is able to fit my personality and lifestyle. This > may be different for different people. I don't care if it shared or > not - as long as it satisfies my needs. I don't care if it is portable > or not - as long as it can be accessed where I want when I want. Which is almost correct, but which should read: I restate - without hesitation - that my definition of a personal login environment is one that is able to fit my personality and lifestyle. This may be different for different people. But my personal login isn't shared, it just satisfies my needs. I don't care if it is portable or not - as long as it can be accessed where I want when I want. Ian