"example: i'm still "fighting" with my colegue on photoshop pelettes positions and some other preferences because adobe takes same "multiuser" policy as microsoft."
Well, I know I'm going to get flamed for this.. but..
NT _is_ multiuser. Each process has an owner (which can be any user on the system), and inherits the permissions of that owner. Processes running on the machine at the same time do not need to have the same owner. In fact, when you're logged onto an NT server, there's usually processes owned by three other users (System, WWW, and maybe Administrator) running continuously during your session. In this way, NT is somewhat like UNIX.
However, from NT 3.x to 4, there has been no way for multiple users to interactively log on concurrently. The windowing system is basically based off of the same code that was introduced in Windows 3.0, which doesn't even pretend to be multiuser. The only functionality that NT 4 really lacks compared to Linux in "multiuser-ness" are a remotely displayable windowing system, a text-based way to log in remotely (telnetd/ssh/what have you), and multiple virtual consoles.
This changed a little bit with the introduction of RConsole in NT 4 Resource Kit, which provides a text-based interactive login for remote users, and VDesk, which provides up to 9(?) multiple virtual desktops (in which you can be logged in as one user on one desktop and another user on the other).
However, Windows 2000 is where a Microsoft OS will finally have all the 'real' multiuser perks. Remotely displayable GUI (which I'm sure the Samba guys or someone else will produce a Linux/X client for) will be included (in Win2k Advanced, at least), and get this.. a telnetd. Plus the functionality of VDesk.
As for the fact that Photoshop doesn't save your settings correctly, blame Adobe and not Microsoft. In the Registry (which, yes, is evil), there's HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE and HKEY_CURRENT_USER. When you log into an NT (or even 95 or 98) box, it reads in the values of HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, and then overrides those values with the values in HKEY_CURRENT_USER, if they exist. Applications are supposed to store settings like window position, etc, in HKEY_CURRENT_USER, and only the out-of-the-box defaults in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE (in case a user hasn't used that particular app before). However, application vendors are often stupid and store all their settings in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, which means that no matter who's logged in, the app uses the same settings.
I don't mean to sound like an NT cheerleader here.. I actually use Linux at home and prefer it. However, it annoys me to see people bashing NT for things that (in my mind) it actually does correctly (such as multiuser-ness in the registry and dynamic web pages). One would sound much more intelligent by bashing NT for things it sucks at (such as being a mail server or not having to reboot).
> That was one of the most boring movies I've seen > in a long time. Not much action, the motion of > the camera made me wanna puke, but at least it > wasn't scary.
After all the hype that this flick got, I was well and truly disgusted when I finally saw it. It was a cool concept, at least.. However, if I wanted to listen to a bunch of college students get angry at each other and argue in an annoying fashion, I'd go over to one of the local coffeehouses. Halfway through the movie I was hoping that the witch would just show up and kill the annoying little twits. Three quarters through the movie I fell asleep. At least the ending was somewhat creepy. I live in a basement, and I had to check the corners of my room before I went to sleep =)
What makes me think that the creators of Blair Witch Project are brilliant is not the actual movie itself, but the way it was made and promoted. The whole thing is basically filmed on low cost equipment. The only real props in the movie are piles of rocks and bundles of sticks. And aside from a website (which is flash-filled, ick) and a few previews, I didn't see any adverts for it. Instead, the producers used the internet to generate a bunch of hype. Not to mention the fact that they rounded up a bunch of drama students to star in it instead of hiring big name actors.
So we've got a movie that cost maybe $100,000 to make, and perhaps $500,000 to promote, along with a bit of time spreading hype. As a result, the stupid movie has been sold out for the past three days at my local theatre. I had to buy my tickets in a line that somewhat resembled the one for Star Wars.
The profit margin on this has to be insane. They'll bring in way way more than they spent. So, bravo to Blair Witch for a marketing job well done, and let's hope that they can use they money they get to take a few more film and acting classes so they can take a cool concept and actually turn it into a cool film.
Slashdot Mirror
"example: i'm still "fighting" with my colegue on photoshop pelettes positions and some other preferences
because adobe takes same "multiuser" policy as microsoft."
Well, I know I'm going to get flamed for this.. but..
NT _is_ multiuser. Each process has an owner (which can be any user on the system), and inherits the permissions of that owner. Processes running on the machine at the same time do not need to have the same owner. In fact, when you're logged onto an NT server, there's usually processes owned by three other users (System, WWW, and maybe Administrator) running continuously during your session. In this way, NT is somewhat like UNIX.
However, from NT 3.x to 4, there has been no way for multiple users to interactively log on concurrently. The windowing system is basically based off of the same code that was introduced in Windows 3.0, which doesn't even pretend to be multiuser. The only functionality that NT 4 really lacks compared to Linux in "multiuser-ness" are a remotely displayable windowing system, a text-based way to log in remotely (telnetd/ssh/what have you), and multiple virtual consoles.
This changed a little bit with the introduction of RConsole in NT 4 Resource Kit, which provides a text-based interactive login for remote users, and VDesk, which provides up to 9(?) multiple virtual desktops (in which you can be logged in as one user on one desktop and another user on the other).
However, Windows 2000 is where a Microsoft OS will finally have all the 'real' multiuser perks. Remotely displayable GUI (which I'm sure the Samba guys or someone else will produce a Linux/X client for) will be included (in Win2k Advanced, at least), and get this.. a telnetd. Plus the functionality of VDesk.
As for the fact that Photoshop doesn't save your settings correctly, blame Adobe and not Microsoft. In the Registry (which, yes, is evil), there's HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE and HKEY_CURRENT_USER. When you log into an NT (or even 95 or 98) box, it reads in the values of HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, and then overrides those values with the values in HKEY_CURRENT_USER, if they exist. Applications are supposed to store settings like window position, etc, in HKEY_CURRENT_USER, and only the out-of-the-box defaults in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE (in case a user hasn't used that particular app before). However, application vendors are often stupid and store all their settings in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, which means that no matter who's logged in, the app uses the same settings.
I don't mean to sound like an NT cheerleader here.. I actually use Linux at home and prefer it. However, it annoys me to see people bashing NT for things that (in my mind) it actually does correctly (such as multiuser-ness in the registry and dynamic web pages). One would sound much more intelligent by bashing NT for things it sucks at (such as being a mail server or not having to reboot).
> That was one of the most boring movies I've seen
> in a long time. Not much action, the motion of
> the camera made me wanna puke, but at least it
> wasn't scary.
After all the hype that this flick got, I was well and truly disgusted when I finally saw it. It was a cool concept, at least.. However, if I wanted to listen to a bunch of college students get angry at each other and argue in an annoying fashion, I'd go over to one of the local coffeehouses. Halfway through the movie I was hoping that the witch would just show up and kill the annoying little twits. Three quarters through the movie I fell asleep. At least the ending was somewhat creepy. I live in a basement, and I had to check the corners of my room before I went to sleep =)
What makes me think that the creators of Blair Witch Project are brilliant is not the actual movie itself, but the way it was made and promoted. The whole thing is basically filmed on low cost equipment. The only real props in the movie are piles of rocks and bundles of sticks. And aside from a website (which is flash-filled, ick) and a few previews, I didn't see any adverts for it. Instead, the producers used the internet to generate a bunch of hype. Not to mention the fact that they rounded up a bunch of drama students to star in it instead of hiring big name actors.
So we've got a movie that cost maybe $100,000 to make, and perhaps $500,000 to promote, along with a bit of time spreading hype. As a result, the stupid movie has been sold out for the past three days at my local theatre. I had to buy my tickets in a line that somewhat resembled the one for Star Wars.
The profit margin on this has to be insane. They'll bring in way way more than they spent. So, bravo to Blair Witch for a marketing job well done, and let's hope that they can use they money they get to take a few more film and acting classes so they can take a cool concept and actually turn it into a cool film.