Certainly

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #133,510 by Arkadiy 1/4/04 12:10:45 PM Reply	Certainly Telnet Server is available Terminal Server comes bundled with XP Every service runs on an account different from the currently logged on user: either a special "system" account, or whatever the adminstrator chose. Any process can start a subprocess as different user. API has full support for it, even though shell has none. In any case, "paying for additional products" reflects price structure and marketing, not technology. -- "It\ufffds possible to build a reasonably prosperous society that invests in its people, doesn\ufffdt invade its neighbors, opposes Israel and stands up to America. (Just look at France.)" -- James Lileks
Post #133,517 by deSitter 1/4/04 12:57:05 PM Reply	Re: Certainly Exactly - Terminal server is an add-on to the base operating system, because the latter is not really a multi-user OS. Only one user in base NT has a "desktop" context. In order to have many desktops you have to change the OS in such a way that large parts of it are replicated for every user. And this is just the login context. -drl
Post #133,576 by Arkadiy 1/4/04 8:35:49 PM Reply	You keep hearing yourself, not me NT can have arbitrary number of desktops, only one of them normally visible on a given console. All services run on an invisible desktop (I am not aware of any way to make that one visible). Terminal server gives you the ability to make invisible desktops visible. Another way to get an alternative desktop, I believe (I may be wrong here) is to hit ctrl-alt-del. The visual you see is actually a different desktop. Also, you don't have to have a desktop to run a process, hence telnet server. -- "It\ufffds possible to build a reasonably prosperous society that invests in its people, doesn\ufffdt invade its neighbors, opposes Israel and stands up to America. (Just look at France.)" -- James Lileks

NET SEND to all except a few systems? - (SpiceWare) - (42) - Dec. 5, 2003, 04:08:12 PM EST

Send to group -NT - (Silverlock) - Dec. 5, 2003, 04:30:20 PM EST

If you send not to machine names, but... - (CRConrad) - (6) - Dec. 7, 2003, 03:50:29 PM EST

Re: If you send not to machine names, but... - (deSitter) - (5) - Dec. 7, 2003, 04:08:32 PM EST

"Messenger" != "NET SEND" ? - (CRConrad) - (4) - Dec. 7, 2003, 06:48:13 PM EST

NET SEND Help - (orion) - Dec. 7, 2003, 08:13:06 PM EST

Re: "Messenger" != "NET SEND" ? - (deSitter) - (2) - Dec. 7, 2003, 09:38:51 PM EST

Alternatively... - (pwhysall) - Dec. 8, 2003, 03:11:38 AM EST

So if Darrell's gang use W2K or later, they could try my way -NT - (CRConrad) - Dec. 8, 2003, 03:18:19 AM EST

update - (SpiceWare) - Dec. 8, 2003, 10:00:34 AM EST

Re: NET SEND to all except a few systems? - (qstephens) - (32) - Jan. 1, 2004, 10:30:25 AM EST

ROFL - (deSitter) - (31) - Jan. 1, 2004, 11:47:06 AM EST

It inspires me - (orion) - (30) - Jan. 1, 2004, 11:50:45 AM EST

Re: It inspires me - (deSitter) - (22) - Jan. 1, 2004, 12:11:51 PM EST

On this we agree - (orion) - Jan. 1, 2004, 03:23:51 PM EST

Windows has no user context? - (Arkadiy) - (20) - Jan. 2, 2004, 06:38:33 PM EST

process-level user context - (deSitter) - (19) - Jan. 2, 2004, 07:53:05 PM EST

I am still at a loss as to what you mean -NT - (Arkadiy) - (18) - Jan. 2, 2004, 10:22:02 PM EST

A login is a profile - (orion) - Jan. 2, 2004, 11:36:02 PM EST

Re: I am still at a loss as to what you mean - (deSitter) - (16) - Jan. 3, 2004, 12:02:12 AM EST

You're much mistaken - (Arkadiy) - (15) - Jan. 3, 2004, 04:05:28 PM EST

Can you be logged in as two people at once? - (ben_tilly) - (7) - Jan. 3, 2004, 05:09:19 PM EST

Not log in, no. - (admin) - (3) - Jan. 3, 2004, 05:13:05 PM EST

I'll tuck that away in case I ever need it -NT - (ben_tilly) - Jan. 3, 2004, 07:33:08 PM EST

Yes you can and it is a weak security system - (orion) - (1) - Jan. 3, 2004, 08:10:23 PM EST

Re: Yes you can and it is a weak security system - (pwhysall) - Jan. 3, 2004, 11:54:08 PM EST

Certainly - (Arkadiy) - (2) - Jan. 4, 2004, 12:10:45 PM EST

Re: Certainly - (deSitter) - (1) - Jan. 4, 2004, 12:57:05 PM EST

You keep hearing yourself, not me - (Arkadiy) - Jan. 4, 2004, 08:35:49 PM EST

Re: You're much mistaken - (deSitter) - (6) - Jan. 3, 2004, 09:28:42 PM EST

What does hiererchy of processes have to do with it? - (Arkadiy) - (5) - Jan. 4, 2004, 12:14:02 PM EST

Re: What does hiererchy of processes have to do with it? - (deSitter) - (4) - Jan. 4, 2004, 12:54:51 PM EST

I am not sure what NT_AUTHORITY is - (Arkadiy) - (3) - Jan. 4, 2004, 08:42:31 PM EST

Except: - (FuManChu) - (2) - Jan. 5, 2004, 01:55:07 AM EST

RIght you are -NT - (Arkadiy) - Jan. 5, 2004, 07:18:30 AM EST

Bottom line - (pwhysall) - Jan. 5, 2004, 07:20:06 AM EST

Careful there . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (5) - Jan. 1, 2004, 12:31:49 PM EST

Does it really? - (ben_tilly) - (3) - Jan. 1, 2004, 01:53:29 PM EST

I don't remember all the details . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2) - Jan. 1, 2004, 02:23:54 PM EST

The licenses are more forgiving than you think - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Jan. 1, 2004, 02:48:58 PM EST

Really interesting issue - (orion) - Jan. 1, 2004, 03:27:39 PM EST

Bah! I'll make it freeware then. - (orion) - Jan. 1, 2004, 02:07:29 PM EST

that's what I did - (SpiceWare) - Jan. 2, 2004, 12:36:33 PM EST

Wow. The score is tied. It's so exhilarating.
257 ms