At 04:15 PM 12/27/2005, Bryan J. Smith wrote: >Robert Moskowitz <rgm at 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_time > > 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.