On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 14:42 -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:

At 02:21 PM 12/27/2005, Craig White wrote:

...

On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 14:14 -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:

...

This all comes out of figuring out how I might run Evolution like

I run Eudora.

...

I see where Evolution places its data in a hidden directory: ~/.evolution

Now why it is felt necessary to put all of this stuff in hidden directories is beyond me.

So it would seem that Evolution is treating each useid as a personality for the logged in user.

Given the way Evolution organizes its data, I could create some more Linux users, and either:

Give my main user file permissions to them and somehow run copies of Evolution using those /home/user directories. Anyone know how to do that?

Or do I somehow have to have multiple simultaneous logins? And switch between them? I know there is a way to have 4 desktops....

---

it's not entirely clear what you are trying to actually accomplish.

For each of my 'identities' (day job, home business, teaching job, etc) to have the mail totally separated. Not to have all the mail munged together, particularly the in and out boxes!

Also folder 'foo' can mean one thing at work and another for teaching. Yes, I could name them differently, but I have been doing it this for a lot of years.

...

Evolution probably is only going to support one instance per user.

So can I run multiple Evolutions?

You don't need multiple instances of Evolution. Run Evolution from your one system user account. Inside of Evolution, set up all 4 email accounts. Then use filters to move the mail to individual folders as per recipient.

Craig White craigwhite@azapple.com wrote:

kmail has 'identities' - similar to Eudora personalities

Yes, KMail, Balsa, Sylpheed (sp?) and countless other programs allow you to setup such things. They are designed to be Internet e-mail clients, not corporate collaboration clients.

Some, including Thunderbird, let you decide between using multiple "profiles" or having multiple "accounts" in just one profile. The latter is most common, but sometimes you might want to use the former (and not just stick with the "default" profile -- which is not prompted _unless_ you use the profile manager option at the command line).

On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 13:42, Robert Moskowitz wrote:

...

---

it's not entirely clear what you are trying to actually accomplish.

For each of my 'identities' (day job, home business, teaching job, etc) to have the mail totally separated. Not to have all the mail munged together, particularly the in and out boxes!

If any or all of the mail servers support IMAP, use that and the folders remain stored on the server and are displayed separately in Evolution, associated with the corresponding server. If they don't you could use fetchmail to pull from the various accounts and deliver to separate accounts on your own IMAP server, then configure evolution to access all of them at once (which will display them separately). The big advantage of using IMAP is that you can access the same mailboxes and folders from different locations and different mailers without needing any other conversions.

Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:

I would have to have it on my workstation as I do a lot of email on airplanes!

Then you have 2 options.

1. Evolution can maintain local indicies and you can work off-line

2. You can have multiple, local mail spools, instead of multiple, remote IMAP server/accounts

In reality, why are you even looking at Evolution coming from Eudora? It's like comparing Outlook to Outlook Express? It's much more difficult to setup Outlook to act like Outlook Express than to just use Outlook Express?

Same deal, consider Balsa, KMail, Slypheed (sp?), etc... or, probably the most cross-platform of them all, [Mozilla] Thunderbird instead?

On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 16:07 -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:

At 03:47 PM 12/27/2005, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

...

In reality, why are you even looking at Evolution coming from Eudora? It's like comparing Outlook to Outlook Express? It's much more difficult to setup Outlook to act like Outlook Express than to just use Outlook Express?

No really good reason other than it is right there on the task bar in gnome.

Now I see that I took a wrong turn....

---- not a wrong term but a program that doesn't necessarily meet your needs. The tribute to how far Linux has come is that there are many different MUA's to choose from including one or more that might be more in line with your requirements.

Craig

Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:

For each of my 'identities' (day job, home business, teaching job, etc) to have the mail totally separated. Not to have all the mail munged together, particularly the in and out boxes!

In Evolution, you must configure this manually. That's because Evolution is designed to be an application in the CORBA 1:1 user:object-framework configuration -- much like Microsoft Outlook is in the COM+ 1:1 user:object-framework.

You're looking more for an Internet e-mail solution in the design of Outlook Express, Eudora and Thunderbird. So Thunderbird -- out-of-the-box -- is fairly straight-forward.

Also folder 'foo' can mean one thing at work and another for teaching. Yes, I could name them differently, but I

have

been doing it this for a lot of years.

Why not use multiple spool directories then? Or if you want to centralize it on a home server, IMAP stores? Then you configure each account to pop to different folders.

Evolution is pretty smart about setting the return address as it was pop'd.

But in reality, Evolution is _not_ likely the tool you want to use. It's really designed for a corporate network with a 1:1 user:object-framework, like MS Outlook or Novell Groupwise. You want an Internet e-mail client like MS Outlook _Express_, Eudora, Thunderbird, etc...

That's why Microsoft makes 2 different products: Outlook Express and Outlook.

So can I run multiple Evolutions?

Yes, like any other multiple X logins, including multiple CORBA/Bonobo sessions for each user, etc...

How you do that is up to you -- there are at least a half-dozen ways.

I suspect I can with multiple workspaces, but that is not what I want.

Not the "pager" -- that's completely _different_. A pager is just a pager, nothing fancy, Microsoft just doesn't include the functionality in the GDI in NT5.x (2000/XP) to this point (maybe in WGF1.x/NT6.0 "Vista" perhaps?).

What you're probably wanting is what (again, I'm using MS speak here) Citrix calls its ICA client in "seemless windows" mode. You launch remote programs from a Citrix server and they look like local program windows on your local desktop. In X-Window, you don't need any special software, or any separate server for that matter.

Here's a taste (do _not_ run production like this), in a X terminal, run ...

$ xhost + $ su - (enter root's password) # evolution &

Now you will be prompted with Root's Evolution setup. If you run a "ps -eaf |grep -i evo" you will see an instance of Evolution running for root (as well as your own if you had Evolution running). If you do "ps -eaf |grep -i bono" you'll also see an instance of Bonobo (the CORBA server for GNOME) running for root, as well as your own.

You can su and run as many programs as you want as whatever user when you have the local user run "xhost +". You can even run programs from _remote_ servers too! E.g.,

$ ssh -X bob@remote evolution

Now you will see a new Evolution program and window open, and it will be the user bob on a remote computer. In fact, because the program is running on that remote system, you will _not_ see the evolution or bonobo instance on the local system. But if you ssh over to that system and do a "ps" you will see them running as bob. You do _not_ even have to have a X session on that remote system -- because that system is displaying the X program on your local X server.

I am taking this to the gnome support forums (which I finally figured out how to find).

Your interest is in the more generic "why UNIX kicks Windows' ass out-of-the-box in an enterprise" area. ;->

These concepts are going to seem very foreign -- stuff only Windows Server and Citrix certified people seem to know about (at least that is what I tell the people I train) -- all lock, stock and barrel on that standard $0 Linux CD/DVD.

I did a search and saw a pointer to 'Fast User Switch Applet', but only source no rpm.

Again, you're starting to touch waters that have very, very different meanings between the UNIX and Windows worlds.

UNIX is inherently _multiuser_ out-of-the-box, and whether you run a terminal application or an X-Window application, you can run it remotely, locally, in a window or on its own desktop.

Citrix had to "hack" and "virtualize" the NT Graphical Display Interface (GDI) to allow more than 1 user to run programs at a time. It's called the "MultiWin" subsystem, and it's still imperfect compared to UNIX/X's _true_ multiuser.

When you use the "switch user" in NT5.1 (Windows XP) on the local system, you're merely telling MultiWin to put user X on the GDI, and virtualize the other user on a virtual GDI in the background. Windows Terminal Server (WTS) via the Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP), as well as Citrix WinFrame/MetaFrame via the Independent Client Architecture (ICA -- actually has several acronyms/meanings), allow MultiWin to run completely virtualized, with _no_ physical GDI, and display on a remote GDI.

X-Window and today's X-Window version 11 (X11) protocol in UNIX/Linux systems has done this _inherently_ for 2 decades. That's because X11 is just a framework that runs atop of UNIX's multiuser design, and doesn't care if graphics are real or virtualized.

Something Gates' decision to _require_ the GDI (i.e., always have a physical display/KB/mouse) in NT must be worked around with something like MultiWin.

But you still don't need to worry about this -- just use Thunderbird instead of Evolution, just like you used Eudora instead of MS Outlook.

Benjamin Smith lists@benjamindsmith.com wrote:

I don't know about Evolution - I tried it and didn't like it ... But kmail (for me) handles multiple identities and accounts with separate in/out folders ...

I don't think anyone disputes that KMail is much better in this regard than Evolution -- at least with far less effort.

Some people want to force Evolution into roles it was not -- let alone try to change into what it's not, and never will be -- because it's not designed as such.

At 03:20 PM 12/27/2005, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

Craig White craigwhite@azapple.com wrote:

...

As for why evolution puts its files in hidden directories is because that is pretty much the gnome way and evolution is very much a gnome application.

Yep.

And it's pretty much the "UNIX way" in general. You almost _always_ put user files in the user's home directory.

But HIDDEN???

I have always kept my data organized by identity and have NEVER put anything in M$s pet directories. After I install an app, I change its data directory settings. Been doing this since QUARTERDECK on 286s.

That way, it doesn't matter what terminal the user connects from, or what access they have on the system, they have their same home directory, settings, etc...

And I could mount shares for specific user info from other systems.

I could go into the long history of NT v. Chicago on that (and the lack of network-consideration in Chicago), but I won't bore you.

You left out OS/2 there (I gained the dubious title of one of the 5 junior blue ninjas. anyone here know who the blue ninja on compuserve was?). I remember when Culter was hired away from DEC. To make a 'real' file system.

At 04:02 PM 12/27/2005, Les Mikesell wrote:

On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 14:35, Robert Moskowitz wrote:

...

But HIDDEN???

There's not much magic about unix hidden files. If you use ls -a you see them. Type the real name and you access them. It's just a convention to keep application data from cluttering the view of your files.

Through a glass darkly

Getting back to Un*x after some 12 years.

Not too many apps back then to contend with!

"Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but rather, when there is nothing left to take away"

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1900-1944)

Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:

But HIDDEN???

Configuration files and directories in UNIX are almost _always_ "dot files." Files that begin with a dot are not shown if you do a list subdirectory (ls) without the all (-a) option.

The concept is that you might only want to show the subdirectories _you_ created, not where some program stored its configuration files. You want those out-of-the-way.

In fact, the reference "hidden" is a more recent Window'ism! It's how the files are show in Samba, because Windows provides a "hidden" attribute. So that's how they show up.

Certain versions of the Windows Explorer will _not_ even let you create a file or directory that begins with a dot. That's because it believes it is an "extension" and not a file.

Again, I said it before and I will say it again, UNIX and Windows are _radically_different_ beasts in many areas! When you say things like "But HIDDEN???" many of us UNIX users roll our eyes. Not because we think you are stupid or anything, but because you have been "programmed" that things are how they are in the Windows world.

I have always kept my data organized by identity and have NEVER put anything in M$s pet directories.

That's because Microsoft's profile approaches are, and have _always_ been, _severely_broken_! The infighting and general and quite gross ignorance of the NT team by the single/home-user Chicago (95/98) team resulted in this.

But in the UNIX world, the use of the user's home directory -- the $HOME variable or commonly tilde (~) or tilde-user (~user) is pretty much an _absolute_.

E.g., I put the NFS export /export/engr/bjsmith in an Automounter map that is shared by an NIS or Netscape Directory Server (LDAP) and it gets mounted to /home/engr/bjsmith on _every_ single workstation I log into. I now have _all_ of my configuration _everywhere_ I go. I might consider AFS or DFS and use caching as well (long, long story).

Microsoft has tried to nail down roaming profiles for 12+ years, and they still haven't perfected it. They've tried to cache it local, or cache portions of it. My personal favorite was, and will continue to be, the first time MS Internet Explorer was _forced_ into Windows NT 4.0. I'd have roaming profiles of 1+GB and it didn't matter how many times I ran the Internet Explorer Administration Kit (IEAK) tools to move the temporary files outside of a user's roaming profile, it would somehow get "reset" back in it.

After I install an app, I change its data directory

settings.

Been doing this since QUARTERDECK on 286s.

In UNIX, you want to _avoid_ doing that. Why? Because in the UNIX world -- _everyone_ knows that user settings go in the user's home directory. Every single application assumes it _only_ has write access to the user's home directory and _no_ where else (except maybe /tmp).

That's something Microsoft itself still can't get their own application division to do -- although the "\My Documents and Settings" has finally caught on well enough. But mounting that across a network is still not as "absolute" as UNIX's home directory.

And I could mount shares for specific user info from other systems.

Yes.

You left out OS/2 there (I gained the dubious title of one of the 5 junior blue ninjas.

No I didn't. I just didn't want to go into it (although I did on the Citrix follow-up).**

386Enhanced mode of "Chicago" (yes, 95/98/Me still use it) is basically a bastardization of OS/2 running atop of Real Mode DOS.

NT is a superset of OS/2, with some really stupid approaches (like the GDI root of any WinForm application, including the NT DOS Virtual Machine, NTVDM, which ran the DOS/DPMI as well as the Win32 console).

anyone here know who the blue ninja on compuserve was?). I remember when Culter was hired away from DEC. To make a 'real' file system.

Sigh. I really don't want to get in these pissing contest. I know all about OS/2 and VMS and the Digital-Microsoft alliance (Digital _always_ made the _only_ quality NT applications), etc...

[ <resume=ON>I spent my college days as not only as the sole Internet hostmaster/postmaster of a 15,000 employee consulting engineering firm, but also it's sole OS/2 expert. I also had IBM and Digital MIPS systems running AIX and Ultra and, later, Digital Alpha 21064[A] and 21164 running Windows NT, Digital UNIX, OpenVMS and, of course, Linux.</resume> ]

Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:

But then I wonder where I should put the music, as that would be for any user.

In an area where the group as write access. There are countless Best Common Practices (BCPs) for this.

In fact, if it's static, read-only content (like music), AFS makes a nice, network caching solution.

At 06:11 PM 12/27/2005, Les Mikesell wrote:

On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 16:03, Robert Moskowitz wrote:

...

...

In UNIX, you want to _avoid_ doing that. Why? Because in the UNIX world -- _everyone_ knows that user settings go in the user's home directory.

Oh, in a Un*x world I would not move them out of the user's home directory. Just organize better by identity within home.

But why fight the native multiuser design with a workaround that you had to use elsewhere? Just give every identity its own home.

This is another thing I am looking at. But I would have to be logged into all of them pretty much at once.

Un*x has always supported this. But gnome seems to be weak on this.

I would have to learn again how to do a make!

On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 19:08, Robert Moskowitz wrote:

...

...

Oh, in a Un*x world I would not move them out of the user's home directory. Just organize better by identity within home.

But why fight the native multiuser design with a workaround that you had to use elsewhere? Just give every identity its own home.

This is another thing I am looking at. But I would have to be logged into all of them pretty much at once.

Un*x has always supported this. But gnome seems to be weak on this.

You can use the same approach you'd use for an account on a different machine: ssh -Y user@locahost programname although you lose a bit of machine efficiency as a tradeoff for not having to deal with special cases.

-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com

On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 00:47, Robert Moskowitz wrote:

...

...

...

...

Oh, in a Un*x world I would not move them out of the user's home directory. Just organize better by identity within home.

But why fight the native multiuser design with a workaround that you had to use elsewhere? Just give every identity its own home.

This is another thing I am looking at. But I would have to be logged into all of them pretty much at once.

Un*x has always supported this. But gnome seems to be weak on this.

You can use the same approach you'd use for an account on a different machine: ssh -Y user@locahost programname although you lose a bit of machine efficiency as a tradeoff for not having to deal with special cases.

oh, sneaky. I WILL have to try that....

I think I'd call it elegant simplicity instead of sneaky. Long ago there was a lot of discussion of the concept of 'orthgonality' in unix tools, with the idea being that things should work the same way regardless of context so that learning them once will serve you in many circumstances. (For example if you understand vi, you'll note that there are only a couple of exceptions to the 'count, range, action' scheme of commands - where count and range are optional). That idea seems to have gotten lost in the GUI flavor-of-the-day world where everyone thinks their context-sensitive system is better than anything else and you should forget everything you knew last week and learn a million special cases instead.

"William A. Mahaffey III" wam@HiWAAY.net wrote:

Preach it *LOUD*, brother :-) !!!!

I call this the "retention curve."

People complain that UNIX has a poor "learning curve." I always complain that Microsoft products have a poor "retention curve" of 5-10 years maximum.

Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:

Because Evolution (because of gnome) is very single user centric.

Then why are you using Evolution?

This I missed in my searches. Back to looking at Thunderbird.

Didn't we discuss this weeks ago (or was that another list)?

Not confused. I have been doing business this way for around 6 years now.

Yes, confused, because you are making assumptions on Eudora and Windows usage. I'm not questioning your experience for how you do business. I'm trying to get you to step back and realize that you are using that past experience to guess what you need to do.

Please keep this in mind at all times ...

UNIX does _not_ act like Windows when it comes to the _networked_ user experience -- especially for business applications

It may emulate it somewhat at the application-level, but it is very, very _different_ when it comes to multiuser -- radically!

At any time I could have switched to a single executing copy of Eudora with multiple personalities. But I chose not to.

Evolution is not designed as such. Groupwise is not designed as such. Outlook is not designed as such (with 1 legacy, MAPI caveat from pre-NT).

These corporate collaboration tools are designed for 1:1 user:object-framework. That's GNOME's CORBA in the case of Evolution. That's GDI/Explorer's COM+ in the case Outlook.

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. I do _not_ want users to have control over such. That's what MS Outlook is designed for. That's what Evolution is designed for. That's what Novell Groupwise is designed for.

They are _not_ designed for what you want. ;->

It is important to maintain separateness of my identities.

I understand this. And I'm telling you that you are not looking for Evolution.

And as things are developing, I may have to fragment

further

than I have. I have around 12 - 18 email accounts. These

are

grouped into (currently) 5 identities (I terminated one identity when a consulting gig ended abruptly). I run at

least

2 identities all the time with their multiple

personalities.

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

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.

This is how _all_ the "Mozilla" suite of products work -- they can use multiple profiles.

Each profile can have one or more e-mail accounts, and their folders _will_ be separated by default for _each_ e-mail account setup.

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.

Learn to use Thunderbird's Profiles, or some other "Internet e-mail designed" application that does the same. Someone mentioned KMail here.

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.

Yes, I remember the flyer that was dropped around one of the ACM meetings when X came out. Around '92 (or was it

'87)?

I wish I could find it again. X use to be a real killer. 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! Even games use OpenGL on X-Window (GLX) -- you can even run the actual 3D computation on a back-end cluster, then render on a _single_ 3D workstation with the card (and GLX accelerating drivers). nVidia even uses the same codebase for both its Linux GLX and NT ICD (installable client driver) OpenGL support, as well as for Apple's QuartzExtreme (OpenGL framebuffer integrated windowing environment).

1984 c/o MIT and Digital (among others). It was loosely based on "w", which pre-dates even Apple's Lisa (circa 1982). But I won't go all the way back to the '60s on how the original mouse had 3 buttons (let alone the original 1973 Xerox PARC window/mount environment had the same, etc...).

GNOME runs on X-Window version 11 (X11). GNOME is a combination of subsystems. GLib uses the X libraries (Xlib). It's core widget set is the GIMP Toolkit Plus (GTK+), which builds upon the X Tookit (Xt) included with X11. Although they have GTK+ that runs on framebuffer, I've yet to see a full GNOME implementation that doesn't use Xlib, Xt, etc... GNOME then adds Pango (accessibility), Bonobo (CORBA object framework -- loosely equivalent to MS COM+, only vastly superior for networks although almost overkill**).

[ **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. ]

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. So Citrix wanted to make a UNIX/X-Window like desktop system, with Citrix terminals ("thin clients" as they are called today) like X-Terminals (the original "thin client" a decade before the term was coined ;-), etc...

But what really made Citrix was their NT 3.51 hack that results in MetaFrame. They virtualized the GDI so you didn't need a physical video card/keyboard. Every [true] Win32 application is built with the requirement of the GDI -- they are always rooted to a physical video frame buffer (i.e., video card) and input. A variant of it (long, long story) became NT 4.0 Terminal Server. The technology was called "MultiWin" and it was integrated by default in NT 5.0+ (2000+) -- which is how you can do "Remote Administration" (simultaneous -- but not slow, remote framebuffer unlike pcAnywhere, VNC, etc...) as well as "Administrator only Access" (2 user) as well as "Windows Terminal Server" (X users).

Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:

This part of the reason why the IT folks and us research/testing folks tend to get at loggerhead!

I like to put it in terms of "configuration management."

Sometime in the past I used this with Netscape 7, perhaps?

Yes, and Netscape 6. They are all Mozilla 5-based. Mozilla 5 being the version after 4 -- i.e., Netscape Communicator codenamed Mozilla 4. ;->

Mozilla is now a set of products, most well known as Firefox (HTTP, browser) and Thunderbird (SMTP/NNTP, mail/news) and lesser known as Sunbird (calendar) and Nvu (composer, HTML editor) among other projects.

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.

Yes, although it has worked -- to a point -- for me under Windows. The problem is that when you click on "mailto:" in any Windows program, which profile does it know to sent it to? ;->

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).

Okay, now I understand where you're coming from. Very good.

The concepts have not changed. The hardware finally caught up.

Right. Sorry I made an assumption there.

Did you see that John Diebold passed away. Now THERE was a man proposing solutions a decade or more before they became 'real'.

And now Diebold sells Windows solutions. Why? Because banks think they are easier to support, not because they don't believe Linux is better. Sigh, I don't think John would have allowed that.

Maybe I should move to KDE now? 8-)

Why? The .NET object framework is very UNIX-like in approach. CORBA is overkill. KParts is underkill.

On Windows, .NET is already turning into little more than a Java-like sandbox for Internet servers and nothing else. It's suffering the same fate as Win32 -- MS is poking holes in it for compatibility.

But on Mono, now that's a future.

The thing that killed OS/2 was the lack of TCP/IP support.

No, 2 things killed OS/2 ...

1) OS/2 users (myself included) were convinced that IBM couldn't fight NT and Win32. Unfortunately, NT/Win32's undoing was MS' own Windows 95. I saw this first hand in 1994 -- Gates' killed NT and Win32, and wished I wouldn't have believed a word about NT back in 1991-1992.

2) IBM still had an informal licensing agree with Microsoft after their 12 year agreement expired in 1993. Microsoft continued to leech OS/2 through Windows 95's initial release -- the Alpha tests even used OS/2 files and code -- and IBM's PC division gladly signed away all rights to sue in the Windows 95 licensing agreemnt.

There were other things, like Microsoft basically stealing Micrografx porting kit for OS/2 so Win32 GUI apps could be written almost overnight (after adopted for the GDI), etc...

IBM should have gotten out of the PC market 12 years earlier. Their PC division is why IBM was basically a "free R&D foundary" for all Microsoft code -- much like Apple in the mid-'80s because of the applications Apple wanted from MS.

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.

They are core NT design problems. NTFS is a core NT design problem.

"Cairo", "CairoFS" and "Cario Technologies" a decade ago sounds a lot like "Longhorn", "WinFS" and "WinFX Technologies" today.

They were vaporware, and they still are very much vaporware.

$ rpm -qf /usr/X11R6/bin/Xnest xorg-x11-Xnest-6.8.2-1.EL.13.20

so "yum install xorg-x11-Xnest" should install Xnest.

The loginscreen ist a bit harder to get: in /etc/X11/gdm/gdm.conf (if you use gdm) you have to change: [xdmcp] Enable=false

to

[xdmcp] Enable=true

and restart gdm or simply reboot Warning: restarting gdm will kill your current session Warning: with xdmcp enabled you will probably want to enable a firewall or everybody in the world will be able to get a loginscreen from your machine

Now you can start Xnest with something like $ Xnest :1 -query localhost where :1 ist the display number to use (:1 for the first, :2 for the second, etc.) and -query localhost tells Xnest to ask localhost for a login screen

Hope this helps.

Regards, Andreas

Am Mittwoch, den 28.12.2005, 08:11 -0500 schrieb Robert Moskowitz:

At 03:18 AM 12/28/2005, Andreas Rogge wrote:

...

Hello,

i don't know if this does the trick for you, but you can log on multiple times with different users by using Xnest.

And where is Xnest?

I found 'something' at: http://linux.s390.org/download/rpm2html/s390/XFree86-Xnest-3.3.5-3.s390.html

last build 4/00 ??

I also found this: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7298

but I can't get it to work. Well I can <cntl-alt> Fn

But I can't get a graphic manager started in any of them.

Even tried gnome-session in F1 window.

I also read: http://xwinman.org/basics.php

But I am not sure of what he is saying here.

...

Let me explain what this means and how it works: As X11 is network-capable you can simply turn your workstation into some kind of Terminal Server. There is Xnest, which is an XServer using your running instance of X as a display instead of a real graphics adapter. You can use Xnest to get another (windowed) X11-Session on your machine and log in with any user you like. These new sessions will be absolutely isolated. The number of sessions is only limited by your system-resources (i.e. oversized Memory won't hurt)

Regards, Andreas

Am Dienstag, den 27.12.2005, 14:14 -0500 schrieb Robert Moskowitz:

...

This all comes out of figuring out how I might run Evolution like

I run Eudora.

...

I see where Evolution places its data in a hidden directory: ~/.evolution

Now why it is felt necessary to put all of this stuff in hidden directories is beyond me.

So it would seem that Evolution is treating each useid as a personality for the logged in user.

Given the way Evolution organizes its data, I could create some more Linux users, and either:

Give my main user file permissions to them and somehow run copies of Evolution using those /home/user directories. Anyone know how to do that?

Or do I somehow have to have multiple simultaneous logins? And switch between them? I know there is a way to have 4 desktops....

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos