Holy Cats! A root user! I'll be dipped!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| phsolide Dec 05, 2009 2:48 PM EDT |
Wow, Windows 7 must be a sight less "advanced" than I assumed, if it doesn't have true (out-of-the-box) multi-concurrent-user capability. I think they should have wished for a few other things. If you're going to go out on a limb and wish for "cron" and human readable log files, why not go for some simple stuff too: 1. A documented system call interface. 2. Discretionary access that's not a hodge-podge of different properties. 3. A well-documented way of determining that a file has "execute" permissions. 4. A single-root file tree. 5. Something other than a backslash as a path separator. |
| phsolide Dec 05, 2009 4:07 PM EDT |
I highly recommend looking at a few of the comments on the ZDNet article. It's too bad that ZDNet will never disclose the IP addresses of the commentors, as I'm sure some/most of them are MSFT shills: Windows (a) already has these (b) doesn't need these (c) does something better and different. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 05, 2009 4:22 PM EDT |
phsolide: Is there any way to easily read all comments? Having to click each and every comment to read it become highly annoying after 3-4 clicks. |
| phsolide Dec 05, 2009 4:31 PM EDT |
Yeah. After the first few, I only read the ones with the most inflammatory titles because of that. I guess ZDNet is trying to maximize "page views" or something, rather than foster discussions. |
| caitlyn Dec 05, 2009 4:36 PM EDT |
I've been meaning to ask. What will you be dipped in? |
| gus3 Dec 05, 2009 5:05 PM EDT |
Waitaminnit. A few months ago I claimed that Windows didn't have multi-user, multi-login capability, and I was thoroughly corrected on the matter. One of the T women (tuxchick? tracyanne?) informed me that Windows has had multi-login since Windows 2000. But the article is saying that ability is available in Windows 7 only with a third-party add-on. So does it, or doesn't it? Can both assertions be correct? |
| jdixon Dec 05, 2009 5:19 PM EDT |
> What will you be dipped in? There are two standard answers to that. The more family friendly one is flea dip. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 05, 2009 5:23 PM EDT |
> flea dip. I thought it was sheep dip. |
| tracyanne Dec 05, 2009 5:32 PM EDT |
Gus: I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. Yes Windows has multiple logins, but not multiple concurrent logins, well I'm told servers do, but I've never actually seen it in action, because even on our 2008 severs, if someone else is logged in it wants to log the other person out before anyone else can login. It's interesting the assumptions the author makes. The assumption that everyone will move to cloud computing. |
| tracyanne Dec 05, 2009 5:36 PM EDT |
BTW phsolide, you will find a person called tracy_anne, that is me. |
| jdixon Dec 05, 2009 5:37 PM EDT |
> I thought it was sheep dip. Same thing, Bob. It's a dip used on farm animals (sheep being a primary one) to kill fleas and ticks. |
| tracyanne Dec 05, 2009 5:53 PM EDT |
I'm looking forward the the authors next articles, "Windows things that Linux needs" The interesting thing here, is that if they are genuine features, and not just something that some software or hardware manufacturer refuses to support Linux with, or has made impossible for a Linux hacker to write by the use of patents, then it will get developed for Linux. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 05, 2009 6:17 PM EDT |
> Same thing, Bob. I know, I just like the way "sheep dip" rolls off the tong. Toung. Tung. Tong. Oh darn, where's that dictionarey when I kneed one? |
| gus3 Dec 05, 2009 6:18 PM EDT |
"Windows things that Linux needs." Of ten Windows things, at least one will lead to a security risk. |
| krisum Dec 06, 2009 7:40 AM EDT |
@phsolide +1. Getting rid of WinAPI should be the first thing to learn. |
| Steven_Rosenber Dec 06, 2009 4:06 PM EDT |
Quoting:phsolide: Is there any way to easily read all comments? Having to click each and every comment to read it become highly annoying after 3-4 clicks. In ZDNet, click on "flat view," and you'll get all the comments in one chunk. I think I'm i_debian at ZDNet, but I rarely comment over there. |
| tuxchick Dec 06, 2009 4:24 PM EDT |
If anything supports Caitlyn's (and my) views on moderating forums and reader comments, it's the ZDNet forums. Unless you like a 1/1000 signal-to-noise ratio. |
| tuxchick Dec 06, 2009 4:31 PM EDT |
Oh, and as to the actual topic, Windows is beyond pitiful when it comes to multi-users. As gus3 and TA said, it does not have real multi-user support. This especially bites when you, as the ace Linux/Unix admin are magically transported by prankster demons with misplaced senses of humor to a job where your evil overlord requires you to admin Windows servers. So you says to yourself, first thing I do is set up remote administration. Ha! Haha! Lotsa luck, sucker, because the local admin user and the remote admin user are not the same to Windows, but two different users. As you can imagine, because you are smart Linux/Unix admins and not Monkey Craptastic Sorry*** Engineers, this creates all kinds of ingenious and amusing glitches. Oh, and it sucks at everything else too. |
| tracyanne Dec 06, 2009 4:49 PM EDT |
Just on the subject of Concurrent logins on Windows Servers (or not). If Windows Servers do have multiple concurrent login capability, then, that is yet another thing Microsoft cripples for the desktop machines. Probably, given Microsoft's track record with security on Windows, not a bad idea (one less vector for the bad guys to use). |
| caitlyn Dec 06, 2009 4:53 PM EDT |
+2 tuxchick I'm doing a government contract as some of you know. They have Windows XP exclusively on the desktop and a mix of servers including Novell NetWare 6.5 and Windows Server 2003. I look at the amazing amount of work done to clean up the flaws and problems which are unique to Windows, everything from registry corruption to malware infestations which crop up despite all the best software to prevent them, and all the lost hours doing that work which is simply unnecessary on other operating systems and marvel at the fact that anyone still uses Windows. Heck, management is so sold on Microsoft and so convinced that Linux isn't really enterprise ready that I no longer waste my breath. Meanwhile I'm using a Linux live CD I created to track down and solve network issues that nothing else they have could track down. The waste of taxpayer dollars is staggering and yet nobody can seem to sell management or the politicians on anything other than Windows. Oh.. and I'm working in the state capitol which is also the home to Red Hat. |
| phsolide Dec 07, 2009 2:42 PM EDT |
I used to argue with NT advocates, back in the Old Days, in the usenet group "alt.fan.bill-gates". One of these advocates went on to be one of MSFT's "security experts".... Anyway, I was assured over and over again that NT was in fact, multi-concurrent user back in the 1994-1995 time frame. What the heck? Was I mislead back then, by folks who went on to lead portions of Microsoft? |
| number6x Dec 07, 2009 3:02 PM EDT |
_phsolly, If you added cygwin or OpenNT (later Interix, later WSFU, later ???) you could have multiple concurrent logins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interix You just had to add the GNU stuff! All kidding aside, I have always seen Windows boxes running in single user mode, but the last time I worked on Windows for a living was in the Windows 3.11 days running on Novell networks, so my experience is pretty limited. Some people on the web seem to have achieved it: http://ajitmonteiro.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/how-to-enable-c... http://www.blogsdna.com/2336/enable-multiple-user-accessconc... Gee Windows is soooo hard! you have to type all that command line stuff to do what comes with Linux already! Windows will never make it the marketplace because of that! (OK, all kidding is not aside!) |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 07, 2009 5:56 PM EDT |
@number6x: I think using the method in those two articles violates the MS EULA. |
| techiem2 Dec 07, 2009 6:31 PM EDT |
Doesn't running Windows violate the EULA? :P |
| hkwint Dec 07, 2009 6:40 PM EDT |
No, _you_ violate the EULA, Windows itself probably doesn't because then it couldn't be sold I suggest. |
| jhansonxi Dec 07, 2009 8:46 PM EDT |
Windows is mult-user capable within the limits of the licensing. Primarily through RDC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Desktop_Services Primarily it is for remote administration but it can be set up for multiple simultaneous users. I first used it as NT 4 Terminal Server Edition with a MRP/ERP application. It was later released as a part of the desktop OS but with a lot of monetary-based restrictions. I've used it with the Linux terminal server client for running Adobe Illustrator remotely from a customer's workstation. This doesn't mean it's secure or stable. With Vista I found it convenient to reset the workstation by launching Access 12 (2007). This usually caused the workstation to reset within a few seconds. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!