Microsoft warns of critical flaws 16717

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch wrote on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:51:33 -0500

There are several distinctions one might be able to make here.

1 Multi-owner. The system understands the concept of a multiple user paradigm (of some sort) and allows a user to own a file or directory, and restricts access.

2 Multi-tasking. The system can timeslice. Some very old DOS and Mac hacks could switch, which basically allows one process control at a time, with all of the other processes lying dormant. Windows pre-95 and Mac OS prior to Multifinder were mulbreastasking, but not preemptively. Windows 95 had preemptive mulbreastasking for 32-bit software. Windows NT was fully preemptive (AFAIK), as is all successors, unless there's a hack mode for very old 16-bit software that is cooperative. Linux-X is a bit hard to characterize, and I don't know if the X server is single-threaded or not. The client processes proper of course are multi-tasking.

3 Multi-processor. The system can handle multiple processors. (The distinction between this and 2 is slightly subtle.)

4 Multi-remote. The system allows multiple remote accesses. Even DOS can do this, with some programming -- the accesses in this case coming through a BBS program running thereon.

5 Multi-desktop. The concept of a "desktop" is known to the system, and the system allows multiple instances. Linux has some issues with this (mostly because the desktops have to belong to multiple users) but can do it. Windows may or may not be able to do it; I can't say.

6 Multi-window. All GUI systems are currently multi-window. DOS might be construed as single-window if one is using the DOS shell. Some very old programs had their own GUI.

7 Multi-screen. There's been exactly one system (AFAIK) that was multi-screen, and that's the Amiga. The reasons are fairly technical, and have to do with what a "screen" really is and how many of them are simultaneously visible. Note that Linux is multi-VC but not multi-screen.

8 Multi-visual-context. Similar to multi-screen except the screens are not simultaneously displayable.

9 Multi-depth. The system can support multiple windows of different depths. Very few systems can currently support this option properly in *hardware*, let alone software.

10 Multi-emulated-depth. The system allows for an emulation of 9, but all windows are actually the same depth. Both Windows and Linux-X have this ability, although Linux-X cannot change depths later (this is being worked on, AIUI).

11 Multi-monitor. Windows readily supports multi-monitor. AFAICT Linux-X can support multi-monitor as well.

12 Multi-emulatory. This is a vey weird concept but basically a system with this capability can emulate multiple other systems. Both Linux and Windows have no trouble (Windows can use VmWare and coLinux; Linux can use VmWare, qemu, user-mode Linux, plex86, etc.)

13 Multi-level-window. Linux has Xnest, which basically allows for the master X server to peek into a window that looks like another X server to all of the programs connecting thereto. I don't know what Windows has, though there are hints Longhorn has a similar capability as one can select from 4 desktops on the monitor screen, and one can see a miniaturized version of the graphics of the windows, not just the windows.

14 Multi-viewer. This allows multiple users to share *the same desktop*, complete with shared mousepointer, allowing for a form of collaboration.

15 Multi-local-desktop (fast switch). Windows is multi-local-desktop. Linux cannot have this capability but doesn't need it, as Linux is multi-visual-context. I'm not quite sure how to characterize the difference between 15 and 8, admittedly.

(It is currently not possible (AFAIK) for a single X server on Linux to commandeer multiple virtual terminals. That would be mildly interesting.)

Did I miss any? :-)

-- It's still legal to go .sigless.