Lecturing linux guru slapped into place
-
Proof of that : The login screen contained a "Cancel" button, and if you clicked on it, you would get the desktop anyway with full privileges.
Sounds like a user-friendly system to me.
"Hi, would you like to enter your password? No? Alright"
-
They don't even really support concurrent users in Enterprise.
Really? I'm pretty sure all the Enterprise editions had multiple concurrent users.
Except that one episode where everyone vanished.
-
Except that one episode where everyone vanished.
that was a weird episode..... especially the ending...
-
Really? I'm pretty sure all the Enterprise editions had multiple concurrent users.
Ignoring the rest: Nope. I was running it at home for some reason and learned that that was not the case when I decided to try it. This is how I know you can hack it.
-
You can buy copies of Windows where only one session can be interactively logged-in at a time
Also known as "all desktop versions of Windows".
But still allow X (5? Unlimited? I dunno) sessions to be simultaneously be active
Maybe active, but not interactive. Only one person can actually work with a desktop version of Windows at a time. There is no capability (out of the box, without hacking shit and violating the EULA) to have multiple users interactively accessing a desktop version of Windows at one time.
TL;DR, your definition of "multi-user" is retarded and wrong.
-
Yeah, the whole post was intended to be a Star Trek joke.
Having said that, I've heard of a Windows XP system designed to have two monitors, keyboards, and mice with a different user on each set.
-
Can Windows (Super Server Version or whatever is called) have two or more users logged into two/more sessions at the same time? Both playing around with their own mouse and stuff?
Yes.
-
Whatever.
Yami's also missing that a "disconnected" session isn't logged-out. It's still active.
You are also missing that you cannot interact with a disconnected session, so it is not multi-user.
-
It just depends on whether you care about having simultaneous sessions or not. If not, then yes, Windows has been multi-user for a long time.
You don't. The argument is that the security necessary for multi-user-ness is poor because multi-user is a bolted on feature that was introduced recently. In reality, the current Windows code base has its multi-user roots in Dave Cutler's NT kernel design that was done using lessons from designing VAX in the 1970's. BTW, Dave Cutler hates all things UNIX, so it's not surprising that Windows multi-user feature are implemented quite different from the equivalent Linux features.
The fact that some versions of Windows don't allow multiple users simultaneously doesn't weaken its design or security, so it's irrelevant in this context. Windows 8 has the same kernel as Windows Server 2012 R2, just different licensing restrictions and different bundled software.
-
Calm down, we all know he's lying about everything now anyway.
-
You don't.
I thought it should have been obvious from my posts that, yes, I do. I'm not sure where the communication breakdown was, but now it's explicitly explicit.
The fact that some versions of Windows don't allow multiple users simultaneously doesn't weaken its design or security, so it's irrelevant in this context.
If you only care about the context of the guru guy, then yes, but then, his whole post is largely incoherent, so who cares?
-
wd. Thanks for the half-likes, guys!
-
You are also missing that you cannot interact with a disconnected session
To be fair, though, I know what he's saying: the user I'd be "bumping" when I take that screenshot is an automated account for a CI tool, and if I do connect anyway, the CI tool continues to function because the account is still running, just headlessly.
Which is basically what Linux users are saying most of the time when they talk about hundreds of users: hundreds of unattended accounts for segregating privileges, and maybe a small handful of accounts belonging to actual users. So it amounts to the same thing.
-
Windows 8 has the same kernel as Windows Server 2012 R2, just different licensing restrictions and different bundled software.
As I put it to @TwelveBaud, If you have a Bugatti Veyron, but you govern it down to 70mph, in theory it may go 250 mph, but that doesn't matter...because it fucking won't"
Of course, he made a good point in that it still has a Bugatti engine, but that won't matter when you are getting passed by a SmartCar on the interstate.
-
Which is basically what Linux users are saying most of the time when they talk about hundreds of users: hundreds of unattended accounts for segregating privileges, and maybe a small handful of accounts belonging to actual users. So it amounts to the same thing.
No, because on Linux you can run multiple SSH or X-Windows sessions at the same time on any version of Linux.
With desktop Windows, it doesn't matter that it is only single-user due to licensing restrictions, etc. It is still single (interactive) user.
-
I don't know about that, I can make any version of Windows do it pretty easily. It's just, Microsoft doesn't like it.
-
If you have a Bugatti Veyron, but you govern it down to 70mph, in theory it may go 250 mph, but that doesn't matter...because it fucking won't
Low spec versions of Windows are more like a $20,000 Veyron that only goes 70mph, but you can unlock the 250mph feature if you pay an additional few million. However, you still get the looks and handling in the cheaper package.
-
I don't know about that, I can make any version of Windows do it pretty easily. It's just, Microsoft doesn't like it.
Pendants!! Doing it without hacking things together and violating the EULA was implied. You could make the Veyron go top speed by hacking around under the hood also, but it is still artificially limited in the first place.
-
Low spec versions of Windows are more like a $20,000 Veyron that only goes 70mph, but you can unlock the 250mph feature if you pay an additional few million. However, you still get the looks and handling in the cheaper package.
-
With desktop Windows, it doesn't matter that it is only single-user due to licensing restrictions, etc. It is still single (interactive) user.
It's just a licensing restriction. Terminal Services has been around for at least a decade.
-
It's just a licensing restriction.
And desktop Windows still won't do it. So what is your point?
-
@rad131304 said:
It's just a licensing restriction.
And desktop Windows still won't do it. So what is your point?
Because desktop Windows will handle them just fine, you just have to violate the license.
-
Because desktop Windows will handle them just fine, you just have to violate the license.
And I could go steal all of the money from my local bank, I would just have to break the law to do so.
-
Because desktop Windows will handle them just fine, you just have to violate the license
How do you violate the license? Either way, the product as delivered doesn't do it. That one can modify it to do so is well and good, but that just proves blakey wrong.
-
@TimeBandit said:
Proof of that : The login screen contained a "Cancel" button, and if you clicked on it, you would get the desktop anyway with full privileges.
Sounds like a user-friendly system to me.
"Hi, would you like to enter your password? No? Alright"
As I recall, it would let you use the desktop, but not the personal items, such as My Documents.
-
@Eldelshell said:
Can Windows (Super Server Version or whatever is called) have two or more users logged into two/more sessions at the same time? Both playing around with their own mouse and stuff?
Yes.
But the only Windows edition that supports true single-machine multiseat without using third party programs is Windows Multipoint Server. Then for each user you need a monitor, a keyboard, a mouse and a USB hub. And 3D acceleration doesn't work.
-
Either way, the product as delivered doesn't do it. That one can modify it to do so is well and good, but that just proves blakey wrong.
By their rationale, desktop Windows as delivered does enterprise accounting. You just have to add your own ERP package.
But of course, that does not violate licensing. ;)
-
But the only Windows edition that supports true single-machine multiseat without using third party programs is Windows Multipoint Server. Then for each user you need a monitor, a keyboard, a mouse and a USB hub. And 3D acceleration doesn't work.
Yeah, but we would settle for multiple RDP sessions at once, or even SSH.
-
@rad131304 said:
Because desktop Windows will handle them just fine, you just have to violate the license
How do you violate the license? Either way, the product as delivered doesn't do it. That one can modify it to do so is well and good, but that just proves blakey wrong.
It's been a while since I did a lot of MS license reading, but last ones I looked at were sold in 2 different flavors: "per seat" and "per user". IIRC the desktop ones were "per seat". There was no provision to allow multiple users in the desktop license, but I think it was just a registry entry change.
If you wanted a classic multi user system like in Linux, you enabled Terminal Services on a server license and loaded Terminal Services licenses which, at least in the last version I used, never really got checked so your "per seat" system worked even if you didn't have enough licenses to cover the concurrent users.
-
on Linux you can run multiple SSH or X-Windows sessions at the same time on any version of Linux
including true single machine multiple seat configurations (no thin clients required, just monitors and HIDs).
-
What are you guys arguing for? Nobody denies that many versions of Windows allow a maximum of one concurrent interactive user. Why bother continuing to bring it up?
The other side else is saying that although some version are limited to one user, the underlying system was designed as a multi-user system and still has a lot of multi-user aspects to it. For example, services run using the same separation that a second user would get; which increases the security and reliability of the system. So, it does matter that it is multi-user, even when the most obvious use of the feature is disabled. Most aspects of multi-user-ness are enabled in every version of Windows.
-
It's been a while since I did a lot of MS license reading, but last ones I looked at were sold in 2 different flavors: "per seat" and "per user".
A lot of client access licenses are sold this way, but no operating systems are sold like that.
Current MS licensing is far more bizarre. For example, in order to access a Remote Desktop Server, you either need and RDS license or a licensed desktop OS. So, accessing RDS from your Windows 8 desktop doesn't require a license, but accessing it from your iPad does. Well, sometimes. If the company owns the iPad, it definitely does require an RDS license, but if you own the iPad, then it may be covered by the Roving User clause of your desktop license.
-
@anonymous234 said:
@TimeBandit said:
Proof of that : The login screen contained a "Cancel" button, and if you clicked on it, you would get the desktop anyway with full privileges.
Sounds like a user-friendly system to me.
"Hi, would you like to enter your password? No? Alright"
As I recall, it would let you use the desktop, but not the personal items, such as My Documents.
not exactly. there was no security after all. it would not map my Documents but you could just go to where they weer stored on the harddrive and they would all be there (
C:\My Documents,C:\My Pictures,C:\My Music)
-
What are you guy arguing for?
I think you accidentally a sentence.
The other side else is saying that although some version are limited to one user, the underlying system was designed as a multi-user system and still has a lot of multi-user aspects to it. For example, services run using the same separation that a second user would get; which increases the security and reliability of the system. So, it does matter that it is multi-user, even when the most obvious use of the feature as disabled. Most aspects of multi-user-ness are enabled in every version of Windows.
That is all well and good, but multiple users cannot use it at the same time, so it is not multi-user.
Let's move away from the car analogy. What you are saying is akin to: "I could win a triathlon if it were not for this quadriplegia."
-
What are you guy arguing for? Nobody denies that many versions of Windows allow a maximum of one concurrent interactive user. Why bother continuing to bring it up?
There was this one guy...
-
That is all well and good, but multiple users cannot use it at the same time, so it is not multi-user.
An interactive user and a service (with a different user identity) can use it at the same time, so it is multi-user.
See how easy it is to make broad statements. Which is true depends on the details of the current working definition of multi-user.
-
I still liked the part where blakey lied to everyone, saying that only home had that restriction.
-
An interactive user and a service (with a different user identity) can use it at the same time, so it is multi-user.
See how easy it is to make broad statements. Which is true depends on the details of the current working definition of multi-user.
Fine. Windows is completely multi-user, except that multiple users cannot use it at the same time. Except for that, it is multi-user.
In other news, I have a 12" penis. Except for that whole 12" penis thing.
-
still liked the part where blakey lied to everyone, saying that only home had that restriction.
Blakey is always right, so obviously Microsoft is wrong.
-
Forgive my ignorance guys, I was practically raised on Windows, from writing tales and making nonsense MSPaint drawings on Win 3.1 when I was a small kid, all the way to being a programmer student today. Never really used Linux.
Please someone explain to me what "multiple active sessions" would mean in the context of an almost GUI-only operating system such as Windows. I don't understand how that could be implemented.
-
Windows is completely multi-user, except that multiple users cannot use it at the same time.
I see nothing wrong with this statement. The first occurrence of the word "user" in the sentence refers to an identity defined within the operating system which is used to control access. The second occurrence of the word "user" refers to an operator interacting with the user interface. Since those are different things, I see no contradiction.
-
Please someone explain to me what "multiple active sessions" would mean in the context of an almost GUI-only operating system such as Windows. I don't understand how that could be implemented.
Multiple RDP sessions to one operating system instance.
Multiple sets of monitors and HID.
-
Since those are different things, I see no contradiction.
I do, because you don't know the definition of "multi-user".
-
So, you know that the difference between your position and the opposing position is the definition of "multi-user", yet you continue to make your arguments in terms that only make sense if the entire world uses your definition rather than actually talking about the definition issue.
-
I am not the person who made the definition. I am also not the one who tries to bend it to suit their tastes.
-
As I recall, it would let you use the desktop, but not the personal items, such as My Documents.
Not from what I recall. Remember, under Win9x, every user was an admin with full privileges. Having a user account meant having a personal folder
-
Posting so Discourse stops asking if I want to discard my post EVERY TIME I ENTER THIS THREAD
-
Windows Server allows multiple simultaneous sessions, but the desktop version of the OS does not. It is single-user.
Oh, you're making up your own usage.
-
@Polygeekery said:
Windows Server allows multiple simultaneous sessions, but the desktop version of the OS does not. It is single-user.
Oh, you're making up your own usage.
Not really.
-
Remember Me (Star Trek: The Next Generation) - Wikipedia
