Auto-Restart Calc.exe After Crash


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Severity One said:

    but charging customers if more than two people want to do something on a system is just a cynical way to get more money, because you're charging to remove an artificial limitation, not for extra functionality.
    Have you seriously not come across the concept of per-seat licensing, and think that Microsoft are the only ones doing it? It's not at all cynical, and is a perfectly valid business model.



  • @PJH said:

    is a perfectly valid business model
     

    I violently disagree with that.



  • @PJH said:

    3 logicians go into a bar.; the barman says ‘Would you all like a drink?’.
    The first says 'I’m not sure', the second says 'I’m not sure', and the third says 'Yes'.
     

    I still think the third one should say "No".


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @dhromed said:

    @PJH said:

    3 logicians go into a bar.; the barman says ‘Would you all like a drink?’.
    The first says 'I’m not sure', the second says 'I’m not sure', and the third says 'Yes'.
     

    I still think the third one should say "No".

    Only if the third doesn't want a drink, and the other two do.



  • @Severity One said:

    The problem is created by Microsoft: only two people or so can be logged in at the same time in Windows 2003 plus , despite the fact that it's a multi-user, multi-tasking system
     

    I think you need to define what you mean by "logged in".

    Windows, since W2000, allows several people to be authenticated to active directory.

    Windows server - and Unix/Linux servers - allow several people to be connected (to obtain network-shared information or guest-available information like websites).  Both also allow telnet connections to run commands on the servers (although Windows does not yet support an SSH service).

    Both types of OS only allow one person to use the console.

    Both OSes permit multiple users access to multiple services.

    I'm still unclear as to the problem... so therefore are unclear how the problem is fixed using by using Linux/Unix as a server OS instead.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Cassidy said:

    I think you need to define what you mean by "logged in".

    I think you need to reread the thread. The discussion was about RDP sessions.



  • Obligatory "Final Justice" Malta joke.

    Ok look buddy: the only reason to be logged-in via RDP is to do administrative tasks. Generally speaking, administrative tasks can only be done by one person at a time anyway. So I don't see the problem with only letting one person RDP-in at a time. On the contrary, it saves me from having to email out "hey everybody log out of the server, I gotta apply those patches" every fucking time it comes up.

    What is your use-case for which this is so important?


  • Considered Harmful

    @blakeyrat said:

    On the contrary, it saves me from having to email out "hey everybody log out of the server, I gotta apply those patches" every fucking time it comes up.

    Why should applying patches require everybody to log out of the server?



  • @boomzilla said:

    The discussion was about RDP sessions.
     

    It was? I'll admit I don't really bother reading birdjit's posts, but I don't recall SeverityOne mentioning RDP anywhere.

    And last time I used terminal services it allowed several people to login. Or am I still missing the point?

    It's definitely eluded me there.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    On the contrary, it saves me from having to email out "hey everybody log out of the server, I gotta apply those patches" every fucking time it comes up.

    Why should applying patches require everybody to log out of the server?

    Because if you're patching SQL Server you have to restart the service. And why the fuck would they be logged into the server if they weren't using SQL Server in some capacity? So restarting the service could fuck up their work royally if they were only half-done. So I have to ask them to log out. And... oh wait but I don't because conveniently Windows Server already enforces that. It's a FUCKING SERVER, remember? All it does is run SQL Server. There's is no point to logging in to it unless you're doing administrative work on SQL Server.

    WHAT IS THE USE CASE FOR TWO PEOPLE SIMULTANEOUSLY USING RDP *ON A SERVER* (and hopefully one that isn't horribly contrived, please.)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    WHAT IS THE USE CASE FOR TWO PEOPLE SIMULTANEOUSLY USING RDP *ON A SERVER* (and hopefully one that isn't horribly contrived, please.)
     

    Desktop sharing via remote support?



  • Yeah, well, this is a difference between "Remote Desktop for Administration", included in the OS license, and the "Terminal Server / Remote Desktop Server for <x> users" license pack on top of that.

    Two is enough, if both are used, in 99% cases some dick closed his RDP client a week ago but forgot to log off.

    A pretty good workaround is to set up the auto-disconnect-idle-session and/or auto-logoff-disconnected-session timers. If you set just the latter, you'll never get kicked by timer as long as you actually have RDP client window open.



    And keep in mind that MS is actively discouraging you from logging on to the server for most operations.

    All the MMC based system management GUIs can be installed and executed on your PC, connecting remotely to the server. In Server Core installation it's even the only option.

    Same for remote PowerShell access, which Server 2012 is pushing for very hard.

    If shitty thirdparty products don't offer remote management interface, blame them.



    Oh, and inb4 "But I have separate username/pasword for server access" - Shift + rightclick on an exe, Run as different user.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    On the contrary, it saves me from having to email out "hey everybody log out of the server, I gotta apply those patches" every fucking time it comes up.

    This implies that you don't notify the people using the server that you're going to clobber whatever they're in the middle of. Patching or rebooting a server / service for some routine reason should be scheduled or at least require notifications for the people who use it.



  • @Cassidy said:

    Desktop sharing via remote support?

    Ok explain in more than 5 words, because I have no idea what that means. Huh?



  • @boomzilla said:

    This implies that

    No it fucking doesn't.

    Stop responding to my posts Boomzilla. Just stop. It's not just that you're a dumbshit that doesn't know how to read, but when you (AND I MEAN FUCKING ALWAYS) post these bullshit "derps" to the end of my posts, other people read them and it derps them up too, then I have to deal with double-derp in the next post.

    Just. Fucking. Let. One. Fucking. Past. Without. Your. Usual. Fucking. Bullshit. JUST ONE.

    God-fucking-damn this forum needs a block option.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    WHAT IS THE USE CASE FOR TWO PEOPLE SIMULTANEOUSLY USING RDP *ON A SERVER* (and hopefully one that isn't horribly contrived, please.)
     

    Is "anything you can think of" horribly contrived?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    WHAT IS THE USE CASE FOR TWO PEOPLE SIMULTANEOUSLY USING RDP ON A SERVER (and hopefully one that isn't horribly contrived, please.)

    Patching SQLServer isn't horribly contrived, but it's a single use case. Suppose that you have a server which does more than one thing. Perhaps it simply has multiple sites being served by IIS and you have multiple people with responsibilities for those. This can often be the case in a development environment.

    BTW, I love the irony of you rationalizing this user hostile feature. I agree that this is a legitimate business strategy on MS's part, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Ok explain in more than 5 words, because I have no idea what that means. Huh?
     

    1. You are connected to a server via RDP and something doesn't seem to work properly.
    2. You contact someone for support.
    3. They ask if they can ghost your session.
    4. You give permission.
    5. They RDP into the same server as you - but get to see your desktop, not theirs.
    6. You continue working as before with them able to view your session.
    7. You finally encounter the error which they can then read, as well as them witnessing the steps you took that produced the error.
    8. They laugh that it's a known issue and the error message ain't informative then work some magic to fix it and everything works fine.
    9. Rather than thank them for fixing the issue, you rip them a new one for the uninformative error message and blame them personally for causing the failure.

    Or something like that.

    Nowadays, Terminal Services supports ghosting (AIUI). In previous days, we installed a VNC server on the customer's client machine so we could remotely view/support them whilst they were remotely connected elsewhere.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    This implies that

    No it fucking doesn't.

    Oh. So you're fine with emailing your users, but not fellow admins. OK.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Stop responding to my posts Boomzilla. Just stop. It's not just that you're a dumbshit that doesn't know how to read, but when you (AND I MEAN FUCKING ALWAYS) post these bullshit "derps" to the end of my posts, other people read them and it derps them up too, then I have to deal with double-derp in the next post.

    Yes, I'm sure it seems that way to you. I wish I could ignore you, but your ignorance / trolling / stupidity just hits a sweet spot.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @JBotAlan said:

    You enjoy your Adobe Reader updater, Flash updater, iTunes updater (watch that one, or you'll have Safari real quick), RealTime updater, Java updater, and updates-to-patch-holes-in-updates through Microsoft Update. Really, you can't pull down ALL of the patches and install ALL of them at once? Modern update systems can...

    And I counter (assuming someone else hasn't already) with all sorts of people--particularly EU bureaucrats--screaming bloody murder that MS is forcing 3rd-party app developers into using their own update manager, and demanding that Microsoft remedy the problem by allowing users to opt to use (imaginary) 3rd-party universal update manager(s) instead.



  • @Cassidy said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Ok explain in more than 5 words, because I have no idea what that means. Huh?
     

    1. You are connected to a server via RDP and something doesn't seem to work properly.
    2. You contact someone for support.
    3. They ask if they can ghost your session.
    4. You give permission.
    5. They RDP into the same server as you - but get to see your desktop, not theirs.
    6. You continue working as before with them able to view your session.
    7. You finally encounter the error which they can then read, as well as them witnessing the steps you took that produced the error.
    8. They laugh that it's a known issue and the error message ain't informative then work some magic to fix it and everything works fine.
    9. Rather than thank them for fixing the issue, you rip them a new one for the uninformative error message and blame them personally for causing the failure.

    Or something like that.

    Nowadays, Terminal Services supports ghosting (AIUI). In previous days, we installed a VNC server on the customer's client machine so we could remotely view/support them whilst they were remotely connected elsewhere.

    Why not just use join me?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    WHAT IS THE USE CASE FOR TWO PEOPLE SIMULTANEOUSLY USING RDP ON A SERVER (and hopefully one that isn't horribly contrived, please.)
    Simple: SBS Premium server, I'm remoted in to add some users the client requested, at the same time the client's Navision support is remoted in to install the latest set of patches (these often come daily), and a 3rd outside consultant is trying to work on the internal website of BI. Happened more often than I can count.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Obligatory "Final Justice" Malta joke.

    Goosio, friend to children everywhere!



  • @JoeCool said:

    Why not just use join me?
     

    Simply because (a) I'd never heard of it and (b) it didn't make sense to bring along a third-party product when required functionality eventually arrived in Terminal Services.

    BTW: for "VNC Server" read "TinyVNC". It pretty much amounted to "download this .EXE off this URL that's our internet-facing web server, and when you run it I'll then be able to see what's on your desktop and watch you click away."

    Yeah, we had to give them a few mins to sanitise their desktop before the contents became exposed to the tech.



  • @Cassidy said:

    @JoeCool said:

    Why not just use join me?
     

    Simply because (a) I'd never heard of it and (b) it didn't make sense to bring along a third-party product when required functionality eventually arrived in Terminal Services.

    BTW: for "VNC Server" read "TinyVNC". It pretty much amounted to "download this .EXE off this URL that's our internet-facing web server, and when you run it I'll then be able to see what's on your desktop and watch you click away."

    Yeah, we had to give them a few mins to sanitise their desktop before the contents became exposed to the tech.

    The purpose of RDP/teminal services is not desktop sharing. Yet you complain it can't do that and don't look for a product that does have that purpose. Join Me is only one of many.



  • @JoeCool said:

    The purpose of RDP/teminal services is not desktop sharing.
     

    Are you the under the impression I believed it was? I don't recall stating otherwise.

    @JoeCool said:

    Yet you complain it can't do that and don't look for a product that does have that purpose

    Peculiarly, I actually did the complete opposite, if you bothered to read:

    @Cassidy said:

    Nowadays, Terminal Services supports ghosting (AIUI). In previous days, we installed a VNC server on the customer's client machine so we could remotely view/support them whilst they were remotely connected elsewhere.

    @JoeCool said:

    Join Me is only one of many.

    I'm sure it is, and back in 2002 when we needed a tool to support remote staff by observing their desktop whilst they worked, it would have come in very useful and would possibly have worked better than PC Anywhere that we initially used until someone looked into a slimline VNC server that was one of many desktop sharing tools available.

    Nowadays,  observing someone's session for support purposes is already included as a feature in Terminal Services (our techies refer to it as "ghosting" but I don't honestly know if that's the right term), so there is no longer a requirement for a separate desktop sharing utility.

    (not for corporate use, anyway. I use TeamViewer to support friends/family with graphical desktops)

     



  • @Cassidy said:

    @JoeCool said:

    The purpose of RDP/teminal services is not desktop sharing.
     

    Are you the under the impression I believed it was? I don't recall stating otherwise.

    You used it as an example of why you would need to connect into RDP with more than one connection. So, yeah you did.

    @Cassidy said:

    I'm sure it is, and back in 2002 when we needed a tool to support remote staff by observing their desktop whilst they worked, it would have come in very useful and would possibly have worked better than PC Anywhere that we initially used until someone looked into a slimline VNC server that was one of many desktop sharing tools available.

    Nowadays, observing someone's session for support purposes is already included as a feature in Terminal Services (our techies refer to it as "ghosting" but I don't honestly know if that's the right term), so there is no longer a requirement for a separate desktop sharing utility.

    (not for corporate use, anyway. I use TeamViewer to support friends/family with graphical desktops)

    So you are using examples from a decade ago that don't apply today to give an example of why you need more than one RDP connection to a server... got it.



  • @JoeCool said:

    You used it as an example of why you would need to connect into RDP with more than one connection. So, yeah you did.
     

    No, I used it as an example of why you'd connect using RDP, and several of our staff use it every day to connect into our servers without contention for connections.

    Hang on a minute... are we talking about the same RDP here? I know it as the protocol used to connect to Terminal Services. It's entirely possible it means something else which invalidates my perception of what RDP actually does.

    @JoeCool said:

    So you are using examples from a decade ago that don't apply today to give an example of why you need more than one RDP connection to a server... got it.

    No, I was addressing your point that you claimed "Yet you complain it can't do that and don't look for a product that does have that purpose" when in fact I did look for - and used - a product a decade ago for the problem that our RDP server didn't permit session sharing. I know them as PCAnywhere and TinyVNC (although I tihnk that came later).  I've also pointed out that I use Teamviewer for desktop sharing when offering personal support, so I've no idea how you've interpreted those several examples into "don't look for a product that does have that purpose".

    And rather than "you complain it can't do that" I've done exactly the opposite: I've said several times now that Terminal Services permits someone (permissions depending) to monitor another's session natively so we no longer have any need for a third-party product.



  • @Cassidy said:

    @JoeCool said:

    You used it as an example of why you would need to connect into RDP with more than one connection. So, yeah you did.
     

    No, I used it as an example of why you'd connect using RDP, and several of our staff use it every day to connect into our servers without contention for connections.

    See, there is your problem. Nobody asked for a reason to use RDP! Blakey asked for a reason to need multiple rdp connections into a server.



  • @JoeCool said:

    Blakey asked for a reason to need multiple rdp connections into a server
     

    That's an easy one: Terminal Services.



  • @Cassidy said:

    @JoeCool said:

    Blakey asked for a reason to need multiple rdp connections into a server
     

    That's an easy one: Terminal Services.

    Do you even read the posts? Or do you have a comprehension problem? Terminal Services is an added feature beyond server maintenance. The argument was that RDP into a server is an artificial limit.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    WHAT IS THE USE CASE FOR TWO PEOPLE SIMULTANEOUSLY USING RDP *ON A SERVER* (and hopefully one that isn't horribly contrived, please.)

     

     

    Me and my college work on one machine.

    Machine is in US of A. We use that to do development in Visual Studio 2012 profesional version.This machine is also having lot of 3rd party tools that I dont have licenses for. So we are using that machine. I am remote desktop into that box over there.

    We work in shifts, but sometime shift overlaps. If we can both remote desktop in our own separate session that would be great, but Microsoft is not letting us do that.

    That is simple use case for you.

     



  • @Nagesh said:

    Me and my college work on one machine.

    Wow, your whole college? Here's the mental picture that gives me:



    Shit, was that racist? I didn't mean for it to be..

    @Nagesh said:

    Machine is in US of A. We use that to do development in Visual Studio 2012 profesional version.This machine is also having lot of 3rd party tools that I dont have licenses for. So we are using that machine. I am remote desktop into that box over there.

    We work in shifts, but sometime shift overlaps. If we can both remote desktop in our own separate session that would be great, but Microsoft is not letting us do that.

    That is simple use case for you.

    I hear ya. Sometimes I gotta take a piss, but there's somebody already in there. I could act like a reasonable adult and just wait, or try to find another urinal, but screw that: I just aim between his legs and let 'er rip.

    Sure, we both get soaked in piss, but it's the fault of the architect who designed the building because he didn't put in more toilets.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Here's the mental picture that gives me:

     

    Wow, it's like the train surprised a festival.



  • @dhromed said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Here's the mental picture that gives me:

     

    Wow, it's like the train surprised a festival.

    Those are actually consultants who have been rendered obsolete by a technical change. They were told by Tata Corporation that the train would take them to a company center where they would be "re-purposed." What they do not know- yet- is that their new purpose will be "industrial adhesive" / "resin suitable for piano keys."


Log in to reply