Linux, to be (Like Microsoft) or Not to be?
David writes "Stephen Shipman delivers a very articulate and concise view of how Linux fits in server and end user environments. He expresses his view in response to Nicolas Petreley's 'rant' in Linux Journal. He points out the subtle implications of efficiency versus consistency." From the article: "[...] efficiency (as measured by keystrokes) isn't the only metric for ease of use. Consistency must also be taken into account. Microsoft has made a lot of hay (and green) by flogging consistency".
It's not Microsoft's continual flogging of consistency that bothers me. It's that they consistently flog the dolphin.
Seriously, Microsoft. You'll eventually go blind.
Vista is pretty much multi-user on the Unix level
So in one instance of Vista:
I could run one copy of IIS in two instances on separate addresses.
I could run one copy of the Windows Networking service in two instances on two addresses, so that the files and other objects visible in each instance could be completely unrelated... with one only exposing "D:" as "\\servername1\ftp" and the other on the other interface exposing "\\servername2\C", "\\servername2\D", and so on...
I could run one copy of Active Directory in two instances and serve two completely serapate DNS hierarchies on different interfaces.
I could create an environment where "C:" was mapped to "C:\chrooted\C" and so on, and even registry access from that environment went to hives in C:\chrooted\C\Windows...?
I don't need uniformity of lookout on Linux. I run admin stuff on console 1, KDE apps in KDE on virtual terminal 7, Gnome apps in Gnome on virtual terminal 8 and OpenGL 3D accelerated games in Fluxbox on virtual terminal 9, all on the same box AT THE SAME MOMENT! Do not tell me nonsenses about efficiency versus consistency of user environment while playing Warzone 2100 and reading Slashdot at the same time.
There you are, staring at me again.