Unix have all kinds of funny things if all happens within a single box.
If you want to send someone a message, there is write (if the person have mesg set to yes). There is also talk, but it requires its own daemon.
Seriously, _nix started out in the mainframe era. Meaning that the basic assumption was multiple terminals hooked up to a single computer, with a different user on each terminal.
Sadly we have a generation or more that grew up with single user computers, and seems to insist on turning _nix into that rather than embrace what it can offer.
I think the point wasn't to specifically lament the lack of thin clients, but the lack of knowledge about how the systems are really designed be multi-user, and actually multi-concurrent-user, as opposed to systems like windows which eventually gained multi-user capabilities, and even then concurrent use isn't exactly the common case (and I'm not sure how well it works in practice, but I imagine with RDP it works well enough on the server products).
All of these tools and capabilities still exist; there's probably still some Unix beards hanging out on Nyx and SDF. Yet here we all are having a discussion on HN instead.
Yes... that's the point of the discussion. They exist, but there is (or is perceived to be) lack of knowledge about their existence and how to make use of them from some newer users, either because of the push for desktop linux, or for whatever reason.
> Yet here we all are having a discussion on HN instead.
I have no idea what you're trying to imply here. I suspect maybe we are discussing similar, but ultimately different, things.
I'm implying that multi-user systems were supplanted by web applications, because multi-user systems did not offer good value, and do not scale. Neither do I see these systems being advanced in this thread based on their utility.
Multiseat is a dirty hack. It is about using software to build a terminal out of a random collection of screens and input devices. All it has really done is give us yet another "session" to mentally track, in the form of consolekit/logind, on top of the kernel and X provides ones.
And it is not about thin clients, thin clients btw is yet another Windows-ism, it is about the concepts embedded in the unix concept that current day devs seems to either sidestep or downplay while building house of cards in userspace that poorly replicate said concepts.
You're not really explaining what it is that you think is missing from modern computing. From my perspective, none of this technology has gone away, but some things see very little use for good reasons.
You are not entitled to speak to anyone like that, and neither wisdom nor correctness increase with volume. This is a comment which can only be dismissed. I am sure that you have much better arguments at your disposal, if you would condescend to employ them.
Samba is a "mess" because anything Microsoft is a mess to be compatible with if you are not MS.
That said, sharing files across networks is a hell all its own. In particular if you want something to just automagically appear in some GUI across the office/world/whatever.
Only "reliable" ones are those that require the user at the other end to know what address to enter to get access.
Seems like this is a great way to do copyright trolling - it's highly scalable and exists within a walled garden which means it's a legal grey area for things like this, much like how free speech on YouTube/Reddit isn't really a thing.
Yeah I don't know what people expect. YT is huge now, they are being watched by governments and corporations alike. The days were you could find entire movies on YT or Al qaida recruitment videos is long gone. If Google steps out of line everyone is immediately at their throat.
Yep. You do not have an account on each, you have a Google account that allows you to access all of google's services. And once it is closed, it is game over.
Most people didn't notice this until G+ hit the net, and some kids used their gmail account (set up with parental knowledge and support) got closed because G+ found out they were under 13.
Others have discovered that if their app on Google Play gets into trouble, bye bye gmail etc.
It is a downright hamfisted system, and likely an outcome of Google's drive to automate all the tings...
I’m not sure this is entirely true across all services. I’m banned from AdWords (long story, I was slinging açaí berries around 2008 when I was 16...), but my account works for all other google services.
And this is specifically why, as I select for my biz an upgraded email service provider, even though Google/GMail has a solid service & good prices, they are completely disqualified.
Google will work out that the accounts are operated by the same person and forcibly link them together. They may then decide that you are abusively trying to evade their restrictions and permanently ban all of your accounts.
My accounts were created separately in the early days of YouTube and they got linked against my will. It doesn’t show up as my gmail account in YouTube because I kept rejecting their “please merge” requests, but besides the display name, they’re essentially merged and I have to log in with my gmail account. I don’t use my gmail for anything else anymore so I don’t care, but it was frustrating back when it happened. I know it’s just anecdotal and not a proper reference like you requested..
Oh, but you're talking about a pre-Google YouTube account being merged with a Google account, not two Google accounts being linked, right? Those are pretty different things.
There was a post on here (HN) a while ago about an entire company account getting suspended because Google had linked an employee of that company to his personal google account which was being used to re-sign Android apps for redistribution.
It’s an extreme example, but if that account is true, google definitely have automated tooling to link distinct accounts.
I can’t actually imagine any reason why they wouldn’t. It feels like something they’d need at their scale.
I actually have a few gmail accounts that are "Youtube banned" for same content ID thing but the mail/drive/whatever part of it still works.
So the "Google account wide" ban seems pretty rare and more motivated than just 3 copyright strikes.
Actually, it is not because I particularly care about uploading videos to YouTube (never done it, no particular plans to do it), but with the fact that Google specifically and forcibly links everything.
Sure, in some ways, the fusion is very convenient.
But I've read a few too many credible stories about how a loyal Google customer does some innocuous action that happens to set off one of Google's triggers, and is instantly banned from the entire ecosystem.
Google's complete lack of customer support, and indeed hostility to the concept of ever being reachable by or accountable to a user just makes it worse.
Bottome line; Google is ok for casual use, but as a biz, I'll never touch them, and advise others to avoid like the plague.
"In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.
At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?" After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action.
After the war game was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among other rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore. Van Riper also claimed that exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue Force, and that they also ordered Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue Force and even ordered the location of Red Force units to be revealed.
This led to accusations that the war game had turned from an honest, open, free playtest of U.S. war-fighting capabilities into a rigidly controlled and scripted exercise intended to end in an overwhelming U.S. victory, alleging that "$250 million was wasted".
Seems like a faked war exercise to me, seems more like a propaganda exercise.
I am having a difficult time understanding how you're taking the fact that they did a test and got an outcome, and concluding therefore that they "faked" the test.
Let me try an analogy to explain my viewpoint. Let's say I'm testing pre-alpha UI with some users. In the first phase, I give them no explicit training or instruction on the software because I want to see, as a whole, how the thing holds up holistically. Let's further say that, during that first phase, they struggle with the menu system or how to enter commands. Okay, noted. But I still need to check various wizards and dialogs, and I've already brought all these testers in. So instead of sending everyone home while I fix the main menu/command bar/whatever, I construct and direct situations so that all the aspects of the UI are exposed to the user for testing. "Go here and click the arrow-into-a-box button to save the file." "Oh, that's what that is? How come it isn't a normal save button?" "Sorry about that, but go ahead and do that and then see how it goes from there." "Okay!"
Would you similarly conclude that I "faked" the test? Do you think the better solution would be to send everyone home? Or just have them twiddle their thumbs for the entire length of the exercise?
It seems quite clear, to me, that the correct course of action is to keep testing. Continue to test and try various components of doctrine to see how they hold up. The fact that this Red Team didn't want to use anti-air radar doesn't mean we should waste the opportunity to test our doctrine on how to counter it.
Yes. That is how these things work. Anything less would be irresponsible.
I feel like we're talking past each other. I don't understand your point of view.
Let's say I'm doing a platoon-sized exercise over the course of two weeks. I've been training my platoon on some basic maneuvers like fixing and flanking, rushing machine gun nests, some patrolling, etc.
The first night, the Red platoon ambushes my Blue platoon while they're on patrol. Red platoon does a great job thinking on their feet, Blue assaulted through the ambush per doctrine and did a good job of it, but Red platoon knew the doctrine too and exploited a weakness.
Got it. Red won. However, we still need Blue to get some experience patrolling, and we definitely need them to have experience reacting to a linear ambush like they'll be facing in a couple months when we deploy. The fact that the Red team used a complex ambush with an IED and an extra machine gun oriented down the MSR is irrelevant. We still need to make sure the SOP works and that Blue can execute it. So I order Red team to use some linear ambushes to see how Blue does.
Explain to me how this is a fake test. Explain to me how this is somehow a waste of taxpayer money, or training time, or pro-Blue-platoon propaganda. Because to me it sure as heck looks exactly like what you should do in an exercise.
If you want to send someone a message, there is write (if the person have mesg set to yes). There is also talk, but it requires its own daemon.
Seriously, _nix started out in the mainframe era. Meaning that the basic assumption was multiple terminals hooked up to a single computer, with a different user on each terminal.
Sadly we have a generation or more that grew up with single user computers, and seems to insist on turning _nix into that rather than embrace what it can offer.