free multi-user remote desktop utility

On Nov 27, 9:09 am, "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
<lanwe... RemoveThis @heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com> wrote:
> No, that's not Terminal Services - that's Remote Desktop for admin use.
> Terminal Services allows you as many simultaneous connections as you have TS
> licenses to support.

So I assume Remote Desktop for admin use is only available with a
server version of Windows too?

I guess I've been a bit spoiled by Unix and Linux, just assumed that
this was basic functionality in Windows too.

Yousuf Khan
 >> Stay informed about: free multi-user remote desktop utility 

YKhan <yjkhan RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 9:09 am, "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
> <lanwe... RemoveThis @heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com> wrote:
>> No, that's not Terminal Services - that's Remote Desktop for admin
>> use. Terminal Services allows you as many simultaneous connections
>> as you have TS licenses to support.
>
> So I assume Remote Desktop for admin use is only available with a
> server version of Windows too?

Yep.

>
> I guess I've been a bit spoiled by Unix and Linux, just assumed that
> this was basic functionality in Windows too.

No, alas.

>
> Yousuf Khan
 >> Stay informed about: free multi-user remote desktop utility 

In article <cd12464c-3f27-48b0-97f9-1ec945cfa9b1
@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, yjkhan DeleteThis @gmail.com says...
> On Nov 27, 9:09 am, "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
> <lanwe... DeleteThis @heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com> wrote:
> > No, that's not Terminal Services - that's Remote Desktop for admin use.
> > Terminal Services allows you as many simultaneous connections as you have TS
> > licenses to support.
>
> So I assume Remote Desktop for admin use is only available with a
> server version of Windows too?
>
> I guess I've been a bit spoiled by Unix and Linux, just assumed that
> this was basic functionality in Windows too.

Yousuf! Assuming that something useful was basic functionality of
Windows? Next you'll be expecting Windows to be reliable and secure.

--
Keith
 >> Stay informed about: free multi-user remote desktop utility 

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips YKhan <yjkhan.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in part:
> I guess I've been a bit spoiled by Unix and Linux, just
> assumed that this was basic functionality in Windows too.

Perhaps, but your expectations should consider from whence
Unix and MS-Windows came.

Linux/Unix came from a multi-user, multi-tasking system from
day one. Networking was added early, and graphics later and
only on remote VDTs.

MS-Windows came from MS-DOS for PCs. That should be enough,
but I will belabor the point: graphics was added fairly early
and closely tied to the console, multitasking was added without
multi-user, networking added late and multi-user only relatively
recently (MS-Win2k?)

These origins continue to be reflected in the OS strengths:
Linux/Unix is very secure owing to its multi-user &
multi-tasking base. With well settled networking but
relatively weak graphics and interactivity.


-- Robert
 >> Stay informed about: free multi-user remote desktop utility 

In article <MtE3j.4611$4q5.2811@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>,
redelm DeleteThis @ev1.net.invalid says...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips YKhan <yjkhan DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in part:
> > I guess I've been a bit spoiled by Unix and Linux, just
> > assumed that this was basic functionality in Windows too.
>
> Perhaps, but your expectations should consider from whence
> Unix and MS-Windows came.
>
> Linux/Unix came from a multi-user, multi-tasking system from
> day one. Networking was added early, and graphics later and
> only on remote VDTs.
>
> MS-Windows came from MS-DOS for PCs. That should be enough,
> but I will belabor the point: graphics was added fairly early
> and closely tied to the console, multitasking was added without
> multi-user, networking added late and multi-user only relatively
> recently (MS-Win2k?)

Actually, at least in theory, the core of modern Windows (I.e. NT and
progeny) came more from VMS than DOS. Whether the cruft on top works
as desired is another matter.

> These origins continue to be reflected in the OS strengths:
> Linux/Unix is very secure owing to its multi-user &
> multi-tasking base. With well settled networking but
> relatively weak graphics and interactivity.

Except that hardware is making *IX graphics better (a problem that
hardware can solve). Nothing will make Windows secure.

--
Keith
 >> Stay informed about: free multi-user remote desktop utility 

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips krw <krw DeleteThis @att.bizzzz> wrote in part:
> Actually, at least in theory, the core of modern Windows
> (I.e. NT and progeny) came more from VMS than DOS. Whether

Yes, Digitial VMS architect Dave Cutler was in charge of MS-WinNT
design. But I'd expect he was sufficiently professional to keep
his prior employers secrets and only incorporate well known OS
features that were required by MS' specifications or objectives.
Including the features like HPFS MS "inheirited" from their
participation in the OS/2 project prior to the split.

> the cruft on top works as desired is another matter.

It is. The question becomes "as desired" by whom?

> Except that hardware is making *IX graphics better (a problem
> that hardware can solve). Nothing will make Windows secure.

Most definitely wrt hardware covering for the loopback and other
layers. MS-Windows can be made significantly less insecure by
the NIST patches and responsible usage. Including avoiding
MS-InternetExplorer and MS-Outlook at least on administrator
accounts since these are proven irredeemably insecure. Their
insecurities can prove troublesome even on user accounts since MS
does not secure priviliged ports (<1000) against user daemons.

-- Robert
 >> Stay informed about: free multi-user remote desktop utility 

In article <mk54j.21816$4V6.2482@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
redelm.DeleteThis@ev1.net.invalid says...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips krw <krw.DeleteThis@att.bizzzz> wrote in part:
> > Actually, at least in theory, the core of modern Windows
> > (I.e. NT and progeny) came more from VMS than DOS. Whether
>
> Yes, Digitial VMS architect Dave Cutler was in charge of MS-WinNT
> design. But I'd expect he was sufficiently professional to keep
> his prior employers secrets and only incorporate well known OS
> features that were required by MS' specifications or objectives.
> Including the features like HPFS MS "inheirited" from their
> participation in the OS/2 project prior to the split.

More specifically, Cutler was hired to make NT "VMSlike". Just to
clarify, HPFS was M$'s intellectual property. The purpose of NTFS
was to make it "different". HPFS was in many ways superior.

> > the cruft on top works as desired is another matter.
>
> It is. The question becomes "as desired" by whom?

Exactly.

> > Except that hardware is making *IX graphics better (a problem
> > that hardware can solve). Nothing will make Windows secure.
>
> Most definitely wrt hardware covering for the loopback and other
> layers. MS-Windows can be made significantly less insecure by
> the NIST patches and responsible usage.

That "responsible usage" includes giving up much functionality.
Unlike *IX, there are many things that cannot be done under a user
account. Even "run as" doesn't cut it.

> Including avoiding
> MS-InternetExplorer and MS-Outlook at least on administrator
> accounts since these are proven irredeemably insecure. Their
> insecurities can prove troublesome even on user accounts since MS
> does not secure priviliged ports (<1000) against user daemons.

I've tried to convince my wife to give up InternetExploder, but gave
up long ago. She has her own laptop (w/Vista[*]) now, so...

[*] What a disaster. Enough so that I bought my new one with XP,
after (and in spite of hearing her bitching.

--
Keith
 >> Stay informed about: free multi-user remote desktop utility 

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 22:23:03 -0500, krw <krw.TakeThisOut@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>In article <mk54j.21816$4V6.2482@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
>redelm@ev1.net.invalid says...
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips krw <krw.TakeThisOut@att.bizzzz> wrote in part:
....snip...
>> Including avoiding
>> MS-InternetExplorer and MS-Outlook at least on administrator
>> accounts since these are proven irredeemably insecure. Their
>> insecurities can prove troublesome even on user accounts since MS
>> does not secure priviliged ports (<1000) against user daemons.
>
>I've tried to convince my wife to give up InternetExploder, but gave
>up long ago.

Well guys you better didn't start me on this one. Here I respectfully
disagree with you. As bad as IE is, alternatives are even worse, at
least from my point of view as a developer. The "open source
community" keeps squabbling about whether certain things are their
bugs or "features differing them from competing platform (read - evil
Bill G. with his IE)". The fact that these things are de-facto
programming standards (not just IE but also Opera and Safari) means
nothing for them - as long as it's not spelled out in W3 standards
they feel free to do it any way they wish and strive to make it as
un-Microsoft as possible. Add to that that MS Visual Studio is head
and shoulders above Venkman debugger and whatever 3rd party text
editor you pick - and you got the picture. No surprise then that many
sites have limited functionality, or don't even display correctly in
Firefox. It's so much easier to develop internal corporate sites for
IE only. When it comes to external sites - Firefox with less than 10%
user base takes disproportionate development efforts, and still some
features have to be dropped (or, to say politely, 'left out for future
development'). In other words, if Firefox disappeared overnight, very
few developers would shed a tear. And yes, it _may_ be safer - simply
because most hackers wouldn't go after roughly 10% market share,
opting instead for over 80% IE share. I bet if somebody was truly
interested in cracking Firefox defences, it would be even easier than
with IE simply because its inner workings are open to everyone to mess
with.

NNN
 >> Stay informed about: free multi-user remote desktop utility 

In article <1i29l3hjqtpi3agbhtq5hfrdajgksgcdpm.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
mygarbage2000.RemoveThis@hotmail.com says...
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 22:23:03 -0500, krw <krw.RemoveThis@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
> >In article <mk54j.21816$4V6.2482@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
> >redelm@ev1.net.invalid says...
> >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips krw <krw.RemoveThis@att.bizzzz> wrote in part:
> ...snip...
> >> Including avoiding
> >> MS-InternetExplorer and MS-Outlook at least on administrator
> >> accounts since these are proven irredeemably insecure. Their
> >> insecurities can prove troublesome even on user accounts since MS
> >> does not secure priviliged ports (<1000) against user daemons.
> >
> >I've tried to convince my wife to give up InternetExploder, but gave
> >up long ago.
>
> Well guys you better didn't start me on this one. Here I respectfully
> disagree with you. As bad as IE is, alternatives are even worse, at
> least from my point of view as a developer. The "open source
> community" keeps squabbling about whether certain things are their
> bugs or "features differing them from competing platform (read - evil
> Bill G. with his IE)". The fact that these things are de-facto
> programming standards (not just IE but also Opera and Safari) means
> nothing for them - as long as it's not spelled out in W3 standards
> they feel free to do it any way they wish and strive to make it as
> un-Microsoft as possible. Add to that that MS Visual Studio is head
> and shoulders above Venkman debugger and whatever 3rd party text
> editor you pick - and you got the picture. No surprise then that many
> sites have limited functionality, or don't even display correctly in
> Firefox. It's so much easier to develop internal corporate sites for
> IE only. When it comes to external sites - Firefox with less than 10%
> user base takes disproportionate development efforts, and still some
> features have to be dropped (or, to say politely, 'left out for future
> development'). In other words, if Firefox disappeared overnight, very
> few developers would shed a tear. And yes, it _may_ be safer - simply
> because most hackers wouldn't go after roughly 10% market share,
> opting instead for over 80% IE share. I bet if somebody was truly
> interested in cracking Firefox defences, it would be even easier than
> with IE simply because its inner workings are open to everyone to mess
> with.

The issue here isn't functionality, rather security. IE is the pits
(for both, actually). If any merchant builds IE-only content they
don't need me for a customer. It really is that simple.

--
Keith
 >> Stay informed about: free multi-user remote desktop utility 

"nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1i29l3hjqtpi3agbhtq5hfrdajgksgcdpm@4ax.com...

> Firefox with less than 10% user base

Hmmm. Outdated stats.
This one:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
says Firefox 36% - that's a bit more than 10% isn't it....
 >> Stay informed about: free multi-user remote desktop utility 

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 00:06:01 -0000, "Gordon"
<gbplinux DeleteThis @gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>"nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1i29l3hjqtpi3agbhtq5hfrdajgksgcdpm@4ax.com...
>
>> Firefox with less than 10% user base
>
>Hmmm. Outdated stats.
>This one:
>http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
>says Firefox 36% - that's a bit more than 10% isn't it....
>

Depends on the nature of the site. Tech sites, especially open source
oriented ones tend to have more FF traffic - and even there IE rules
(50+%). Corp sites are much more IE-heavy. Have not done eComm sites
in last few years though - that stats would be much more
representative. Also never done pr0n sites, so have no idea about the
stats on that big part of Net traffic. The average Joe 6pack
hardly ever visits w3schools - too bad for him, it's a great site, I
have it bookmarked in both IE and FF and use it for ref every now and
then. BTW, I mostly open it in FF as to not mess with my work that is
mostly in IE.

NNN
 >> Stay informed about: free multi-user remote desktop utility 

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 00:06:01 -0000, "Gordon"
<gbplinux RemoveThis @gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>"nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1i29l3hjqtpi3agbhtq5hfrdajgksgcdpm@4ax.com...
>
>> Firefox with less than 10% user base
>
>Hmmm. Outdated stats.
>This one:
>http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
>says Firefox 36% - that's a bit more than 10% isn't it....
>

From the same page:

<quote>
W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web
technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative
browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet
Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek
out other browsers.

These facts indicate that the browser figures above are not 100%
realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet
Explorer is used by at least 80% of the users.
</quote>

NNN
 >> Stay informed about: free multi-user remote desktop utility 

nobody DeleteThis @nowhere.net wrote:

>I bet if somebody was truly
>interested in cracking Firefox defences, it would be even easier than
>with IE simply because its inner workings are open to everyone to mess

You are claiming that being open-source makes it less secure?
Nonsense.
 >> Stay informed about: free multi-user remote desktop utility