>>> Can't you just lock the machine instead of logging off?
>>
>> The issue being that it is then impossible for anyone except the 
>> person logged on to discover if the machine is still running OK, how 
>> far it's got, etc.
> 
> Set up a "lab" user or some such that everyone knows the login for

Then the *other* piece of software running on the computer wouldn't be 
able to log audit events under the correct username.

> OOC, are normal applications required to carry on 
> running if the user who started them logs off?  I have no idea.

Under Windows, any processes started by a user ordinarily get terminated 
when that user logs off. Unless they do something special to prevent this...

Post a reply to this message

> Then the *other* piece of software running on the computer wouldn't be 
> able to log audit events under the correct username.

Why not?  If it can log them under the correct username when nobody is 
logged on, why shouldn't it be able to do it when someone else is logged on?

> Under Windows, any processes started by a user ordinarily get terminated 
> when that user logs off. Unless they do something special to prevent 
> this...

Like what? Do most programs cope OK with running when nobody is logged on? 
I would have thought some get a bit screwed up what with there being no 
desktop or whatever.

Post a reply to this message

>> Then the *other* piece of software running on the computer wouldn't be 
>> able to log audit events under the correct username.
> 
> Why not?  If it can log them under the correct username when nobody is 
> logged on, why shouldn't it be able to do it when someone else is logged 
> on?

The program continues to run with nobody logged on, and continues to 
execute any instructions it has been given. However, to give it 
instructions, you have to log on, and it records the username of the 
person giving the instructions. If we had a single logon, there would be 
no record of who issued those instructions.

>> Under Windows, any processes started by a user ordinarily get 
>> terminated when that user logs off. Unless they do something special 
>> to prevent this...
> 
> Like what? Do most programs cope OK with running when nobody is logged 
> on? I would have thought some get a bit screwed up what with there being 
> no desktop or whatever.

No, I meant unless the *program* does something special to tell the OS 
it wants to keep running.

It sounds like the guys at HQ are looking at trying to run our problem 
software as a service somehow... We'll see if they can actually get it 
to work. (I rather suspect not.)

Post a reply to this message

> The program continues to run with nobody logged on, and continues to 
> execute any instructions it has been given. However, to give it 
> instructions, you have to log on, and it records the username of the 
> person giving the instructions. If we had a single logon, there would be 
> no record of who issued those instructions.

Just set it up so the program that you give commands to cannot be started as 
the lab user, and then do "Run As" the real user when you need to issue 
commands...

BTW I thought you could switch users on XP and Vista without the first 
user's programs being shut down.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> The program continues to run with nobody logged on, and continues to 
>> execute any instructions it has been given. However, to give it 
>> instructions, you have to log on, and it records the username of the 
>> person giving the instructions. If we had a single logon, there would 
>> be no record of who issued those instructions.
> 
> Just set it up so the program that you give commands to cannot be 
> started as the lab user, and then do "Run As" the real user when you 
> need to issue commands...

That could work, I guess.

> BTW I thought you could switch users on XP and Vista without the first 
> user's programs being shut down.

Uh... yeah, possibly.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Then the *other* piece of software running on the computer wouldn't be 
> able to log audit events under the correct username.

You do know you can have two people logged on at the same time, yes?

Start program one, lock the screen, log in as second user, start program 
two, lock the screen.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> You do know you can have two people logged on at the same time, yes?

Actually, that might be slightly harder with AD. You might have to log in 
remotely to have multiple accounts logged in at once.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> BTW I thought you could switch users on XP and Vista without the first
> user's programs being shut down.

In Windows XP, you cannot "switch users" like that if the computer is part
of a Windows domain. But it is supported since Vista.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> In Windows XP, you cannot "switch users" like that if the computer is part
> of a Windows domain. 

Is that true even if you log in remotely with RDP? I know we did that with 
Win2000, so I find it hard to believe XP can't?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

>> In Windows XP, you cannot "switch users" like that if the computer is 
>> part
>> of a Windows domain. 
> 
> Is that true even if you log in remotely with RDP? I know we did that 
> with Win2000, so I find it hard to believe XP can't?

Windows XP Professional supports 1 user logging in via RDP (but only if 
nobody is logged in remotely). Windows 2003 Server supports multiple RDP 
sessions, but Windows XP supports only one at a time. As in, before 
anybody else can connect, you must disconnect (i.e., log out).

Post a reply to this message