I think MS just did us (and themselves) a disservice.

[Martin Kuhne]

I was writing this in response to the following post

> Because there are effectively no multi-user Windows OSes, this isn't a
> problem from MS's point of view.

So this is wrong in a number of ways. First, we do have multi-user.
Second, you are assuming out of thin air that this rdr limitation is not
seen as a problem at Microsoft.

Regards,
Martin Kuhne
Escalation Engineer, Critical Problem Resolution (CPR)
Microsoft GmbH

-----Original Message-----
From: David Collier-Brown [mailto:David.Collier-Brown at canada.sun.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 2:13 PM
To: Martin Kuhne; David Collier-Brown
Subject: Re: I think MS just did us (and themselves) a disservice.


Martin Kuhne wrote:
> 
> What you fail to recognize is that even 3.51 (don't know about 3.1)
can
> have multiple user contexts being active at the same time. (For
example
> a service running under its own user account) The limit mentioned in
the
> article is per user, not per workstation. The author of the article
got
> that wrong, probably because at that time Windows NT would allow only
> one interactive GUI session.
> 
> I don't know your definition of multi-user, but what do you call
> Terminal Server then?
> 
> Exactly.  It's typical blinders-on, "microsoft is evil" mentality.
> Certainly disappointing, but not surprising.

	Could you expand on your explanation, please? (I'm not
	slanging MS: if you think I hate MS, read my book!)

	I don't see how allowing multiple users per
	workstation affects a limitation on using multiple
	userid/passwords pairs. It still sounds like a 
	arguably bad idea, weakly enforced.

	I'm reading it as a disfeature which doesn't
	help MS either...

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown,           | Always do right. This will gratify 
Performance & Engineering Team | some people and astonish the rest.
Americas Customer Engineering  |                      -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849                 | davecb at canada.sun.com