I'm not so sure this is true. You might not see anything at all. It depends on if you are required to launch programs using the Host's gui interface. If not then it would be very easy to run a program unnoticed in the background. You wouldn't even need to see the Host's screen.
Under Windows it is simple to execute a program invisibly in the background. This little code snippet should do just that:
function HiddenCommand( const cmd: String ): Boolean;
var
r: Boolean;
StartupInfo: TSTARTUPINFO;
ProcessInfo: TPROCESSINFORMATION;
begin
FillChar(StartupInfo, SizeOf(TSTARTUPINFO), 0);
StartupInfo.cb:= SizeOf(TSTARTUPINFO);
StartupInfo.dwFlags:= STARTF_USESHOWWINDOW;
StartupInfo.wShowWindow:= SW_HIDE;
FillChar(ProcessInfo, SizeOf(TPROCESSINFORMATION), 0);
r:= CreateProcess(nil, pchar(cmd), nil, nil, False, NORMAL_PRIORITY_CLASS, nil, nil, StartupInfo, ProcessInfo);
if not( r ) then Result:= FALSE {Error of some sort.}
else Result:= TRUE; {Sent OK.}
end;
Just an example mind you (and granted I don't know how to do this remotely), but all they really need is a shell prompt. And since WinXP by default makes every user an "Administrator"(root), something as simple as "del/S/Q/F *.mp3" issued from the root directories on your hard drives would probably be adequate for their needs. After all, that should only delete files with the mp3 file extention. Reasonable precaution on their part.;-P
I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who like twm.:-)
Seriously though, with proper configuration and a few utilities to set things like background pictures (if you like that sort of thing, which I do btw) it is possible to achieve a very usable, and fast/low-mem/low-cpu desktop. I personally find that most of the features in the various desktop environments I don't need. I also must say that I dislike all the files they seem to want to create in my user directory, but that is just a personal gripe.
Re:Good riddance to yet another bad business model
on
Eazel Come, Eazel Go?
·
· Score: 1
As for those pore students and struggling commercial developers on Windows, guess what? If the development environment didn't cost them over $1,200
then they are using just the GNU tools etc... If they are using simplified GUI toolkits or an IDE for less it means pirated software.
Methinks you know naught of what you speak. Just as an example, Delphi 3 Standard back when it was released cost about $99US. Granted it didn't have all the extras of the higher priced versions, but even Professional version wasn't $1200, and that contained the source code for the included components. Delphi 5 Standard is $99.95. You really need to rethink this statement.
Sounds like a plan, just one problem. Where are you going to find a marketing person to sell the idea to venture capitolists? I imagine building an Ark would be rather expensive.;-)
Not sure when the first practical jet engine was invented, but jet propulsion is older than most people realize. As an example, Germany's infamous V-1, perhaps better known as the "buzzbomb" or "doodlebug" was deployed in 1944 against England. It used a simple jet engine. Basically it flew in a more-or-less straight line until it ran out of fuel and crashed.
That said, I agree with you on its unlikelihood. I'd also like to say I rather enjoyed the movie too.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who like twm. :-)
Seriously though, with proper configuration and a few utilities to set things like background pictures (if you like that sort of thing, which I do btw) it is possible to achieve a very usable, and fast/low-mem/low-cpu desktop. I personally find that most of the features in the various desktop environments I don't need. I also must say that I dislike all the files they seem to want to create in my user directory, but that is just a personal gripe.
Sounds like a plan, just one problem. Where are you going to find a marketing person to sell the idea to venture capitolists? I imagine building an Ark would be rather expensive. ;-)
Not sure when the first practical jet engine was invented, but jet propulsion is older than most people realize. As an example, Germany's infamous V-1, perhaps better known as the "buzzbomb" or "doodlebug" was deployed in 1944 against England. It used a simple jet engine. Basically it flew in a more-or-less straight line until it ran out of fuel and crashed. That said, I agree with you on its unlikelihood. I'd also like to say I rather enjoyed the movie too.