I think MS just did us (and themselves) a disservice.
mkuhne at microsoft.com
Thu Jan 11 09:07:52 GMT 2001
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.
Escalation Engineer, Critical Problem Resolution (CPR)
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)
> have multiple user contexts being active at the same time. (For
> a service running under its own user account) The limit mentioned in
> article is per user, not per workstation. The author of the article
> 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...
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
More information about the samba-technical