On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 21:03 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > >>> For example: you configure your gnome panel to include a clock > >>> applet. Then you open another session and add a network monitor applet > >>> to it. What do you expect from this? That both panels will always stay > >>> perfectly in sync and the network monitor applet is transparently > >>> added to the first session as well? When you log out from both, what > >>> happens when you log in again, do you get the panel layout from the > >>> first session or from the second session? > >> How is this different than running 2 instances of vi? If you edit the same > >> file at the same time you'll have a conflict. That doesn't mean you should > >> cripple the system to the point where it can't run 2 instances of > >> vi. > > > > vi has static config files. They are only read on vi's startup. > > > > OTOH GNOME usually does instant-apply. I.e. what you configure is > > immediately executed and saved for later. > > I've always hated that. I've had horrible things happen when I change > layouts on a large screen and the next login is on a small one. Things > in general seem to resize better now so maybe it isn't as much of a > problem. Can you still make apps open with the borders you need to > resize them off the screen completely? > > > You did not respond to my question what you'd think the proper > > behaviour would be for gnome-panel. I'll take that as an > > acknowledgment that you understand that the problem exists. > > My idea of proper behavior is to not change defaults unless I specify > that I want defaults changed. I suppose that doesn't mesh very well > with gnome concepts but just because I try something once on one monitor > does not mean I'll want it always or ever again. And in the context of > multiple sessions for the same user, that would mean the last save wins > as you expect for other files. > > >>> The question is: is it worth bothering at all with questions like the > >>> panel question above? Since the feature is redundant we might simply > >>> say: forget it, let's disable multiple logins and the problem is > >>> gone. > >> Windows terminal services has gotten this more or less right since at least > >> windows 2000 server that included 2 licenses for administrative use. If > >> they can do it with an interface that wasn't designed to be remote or > >> multiuser, it can't be that hard. > > > > Are you sure you can log in twice on Win2k as exactly the same user id? > > Yes, and you can be running the same apps in different-sized windows in > each. You only get terminal services in the server products but it is > done surprisingly well - current versions take sound along for the ride too. Are you sure? I was just watching somebody try to use RDP to a Windows Server 2008 box this weekend and it blanked out the first login and only allowed the second login direct access. I could be wrong and maybe he configured it wrong, but I though Windows only allowed one _active_ login at a time, and suspended the other remote sessions. Dan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
