On 07/18/2015 06:36 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
For currently logged in user, I agree it's a bad idea and agree WONTFIX is appropriate, shouldn't be supported by the login manager.
DUH? Suppose this wasn't X Suppose it was just logging in, à la plain old UNIX from the PDP-11 days, with a VT100 over a RS-232 line. The go to the next seat in the terminal room and log in again using the same ID. Now suppose you're at some conference in the late 1990s where the terminal room is full of X terminals (think: 'thin clients' running X) courtesy of SUN, HP or more likely Network Computing Devices (who lasted until 2004). You log in on one of those. Now, one gain, you move to the next seat and log in again. In each of those use-cases you can log in with the same ID/credentials to the same host machine. I won't presume to go into WHY you want to do that any more than the fact that I have six tabs open on my konsole and a root login on VT1 and a another root login on VT2 running Htop. I think that "why would you want to do that" as a straight forward question, as might be asked to many issues on this forum is reasonable. Sometimes we might offer a better way or a work around. But asking it as a put down, claiming without asking details that your use case is unreasonable, ridiculous or similar, especially when it comes from someone as experienced as James seems to me to be a bit ... well ... off. We all know that there are many later version programs, games are a good example, that have to replicate idiosyncrasies & shortcomings of the original on another platform. A poster boy for that might be OpenOffice having to replicate many of the idiosyncrasies of MS-Word. UNIX has a long history of very good, very powerful word processing. A key part of its ancestry/justification was being the document processing system for the legal department at Bell Labs. One of the problems of OpenOffice was that it nested indents/bullet-lists/subparagraphs properly whereas MS-word didn't. OUCH. But then different versions of MS-Word formatted pages differently too! Again, even though VIM as a rewrite of the old VI of Bill Joy of 1976 era cleaning up same horrible code (I recall in 1983 having to patch it under SYSTEM V) and adding many capabilities, but had to have a "compatibility mode" to replicate the original VI's shortcomings and bugs for the applications that depended on it. Personally I think James is in the right here when he asks for this to have consistent behaviour. Mind you, calling the developer unprofessional when he's dealing with FOSS rather than a BigCorp with more vigour conformance, reporting and testing, is a bit overstepping the mark. If the developer has said "I don't have tome to fix it, how about you do it", then that's another matter. That's what FOSS is about. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org