Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Low Productivity of Knowledge Workers
Message-ID: <6331@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 27 Sep 89 18:23:46 GMT
References: <9676@venera.isi.edu> <189@crucible.UUCP> <291@voa3.UUCP> <294@voa3.UUCP>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 21

Let me clarify one thing...

In article <294@voa3.UUCP>, ck@voa3.UUCP (Chris Kern) writes:
> In article <6313@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >An office is inherently a multi-user environment. Grafting the software
> >on top of a bunch of single-user systems still leaves every man an island.

> The point about multitasking is well-taken, but that doesn't necessarily
> imply that a shared-logic machine is the only approach to office automation.

I defined multuser in functional terms: multitasking and protection. There
is nothing there forcing these multiuser machines to actually have more
than 1 user on them. Multiuser is a function of the software on the machine,
not the distribution of CPU power.

The rest of the article basically reinforces my point.
-- 
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
"That is not the Usenet tradition, but it's a solidly-entrenched            U
 delusion now." -- brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor)