James Knott wrote: > George Farris wrote: >> On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 22:15 -0600, Mark Haury wrote: >> >>> James Knott wrote: >>> Windows doesn't need (never has, and never will) to have the capability for >>> simultaneous users. What would be the point? As PCs continue to shrink in size >>> as they increase in power, it makes a lot more sense for everybody to have their >>> own separate computer and not share someone else's. Home networking is a >>> no-brainer if they want or need to share anything. >>> >>> >> The point my friend, would be to separate the different processes such >> as apache, postfix, desktop apps etc into different user ids thus >> gaining a logical, built in, separation of security boundaries. >> >> > > The point I made about Citrix is that many companies have a need to run > multiple users on a server. Citrix came up with a way to make that > possible, as Windows by itself can't do that. While you can have > multiple users on Windows, they can't be on at the same time. That sort > of thing comes standard with Linux or Unix. > i could have sworn that microsoft have remote desktop now. hell, the story goes that microsoft killed of smart displays as it would be a cheap way to do multi-user on xp home. something that would undermine their more expensive multi-user licenses on win2k3 (where, iirc, you pay ones for the os, and ones for the number of users you want able to access the system at the same time). _______________________________________________ maemo-users mailing list maemo-users@xxxxxxxxx https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-users
