At 04:15 PM 12/27/2005, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
At any time I could have switched to a single executing copy of Eudora with multiple personalities. But I chose not to.
Eudora is not designed for the 1:1 setup. Outlook Express is not designed for the 1:1 setup. [Mozilla] Thunderbird is not designed for the 1:1 setup.
As an enterprise administrator, I want a 1:1 user:object-framework setup when users login.
This part of the reason why the IT folks and us research/testing folks tend to get at loggerhead!
Why I would never make the move ot Outlook. But I see I will be peeling the cover off of Thunderbird.
In addition to having the ability and separation of multiple e-mail accounts, the "Personalities" are called "Profiles" in Thunderbird. By default, the "default" profile is always used (and _not_ prompted for) in Thunderbird.
Here's how you launch the profile manager in various OSes for Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/support/thunderbird/profile
Sometime in the past I used this with Netscape 7, perhaps? So it all started coming 'back' to me.
Namely, you need to pass the "-profilemanager" option.
Once you have multiple profiles, when you launch Thunderbird, it will prompt you for which one (unless you click the box "Don't ask at startup").
If you already have one running, you will want to pass the option again. Otherwise, the currently running profile may be assumed.
I see that running multiple Thunderbirds doesn't work according to this article, but I wonder if this is a windows centric answer, not applying to unix.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Run_multiple_copies_of_Thunderbird_at_the_same_tim...
I run the others a couple times a day (desktop DOES get cluttered and memory consumed). All the work documents and mail are organized by identity. So I am leaning more and more to separate linux users.
No, that's _overkill_ for what you want.
good!
After finding more gnome documentation, I see they call them workspaces.
Yes, I know. Desktops, workspaces, viewports, etc... In old, original "virtual window manager" speak, it's the "pager." The idea that you can "page around" multiple areas of the X session so it seems you have a much bigger desktop than normal.
And when you did, you brought the network to a standstill. I 'caught' some of our unix support people doing this with our network sniffer. After that we got a LOT more memory for those X-terminals so that they were not always getting refreshes from their clients (it was always a lot of fun with Xwindows and SNMP in explaining that they had the client/server model reversed).
But then we are not running the same Un*x on the same platforms, terminals, networks that we were then.
Who says? The concepts are _exactly_ the _same_ today on Linux!
But at least now we have the memory and processor to support this.
Motorla tried to sell us a system and showed our execs how they ran it in their office. Seemed so nice and efficient. I was able to figure out that they were running a FDDI backbone and only 5 workstations per ethernet segment (all routed).
The concepts have not changed. The hardware finally caught up.
Did you see that John Diebold passed away. Now THERE was a man proposing solutions a decade or more before they became 'real'.
1984 c/o MIT and Digital (among others). It was loosely based on "w", which pre-dates even Apple's Lisa (circa 1982).
That Lisa was an abomination.
[ **NOTE: The next-generation of GNOME is adopting the .NET object framework, so objects and applications will be at least source-code compatible with MS .NET, if not Common Language Runtime (CLR) compatible. The same people behind the open Mono implementation were the same people who designed GNOME -- and they work for Novell who purchased Ximian. ]
Maybe I should move to KDE now? 8-)
Citrix began around '90 on OS/2. The OS/2 kernel, unlike the NT kernel (with its GDI requirement), could support multiple sessions, and run a GUI atop of each session.
The thing that killed OS/2 was the lack of TCP/IP support. I had kludged FTP software's drivers in, but the pain was more than Windows 3.0 with either FTP's or Novell's stack.
But what really made Citrix was their NT 3.51 hack that results in MetaFrame.
And I won't go into the many problems this caused me. Mostly becuase the scars are healed on only the memory of them are left.