OT: Things have changed.....MS unbelievable oversight....

[Fairlight]

At Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:41:51AM -0700 or thereabouts, 
suspect Bob Rasmussen was observed uttering:
> (Previous content trimmed)
> 
> I know better than to argue "oughts" with you guys, so let me add a couple 
> of facts to the mix:
> 
> 1) Windows XP, etc., are designed as *client* systems. Server 2003 and 
> Server 2008 may behave differently -- I can't check from where I am.

2003 Server acts like Windows 2000, from what I remember.  It gives you a
choice of actions, and additionally lets you flag it with a reason or not.

> 2) A shutdown in Windows is not forcible, but cooperative. When the user 
> (or any program) initiates a shutdown, Windows sends a shutdown request to 
> all running programs. Any program that has unsaved files can prompt the 
> user to save files. Any program that is doing anything serious can DENY 
> the shutdown request, and Windows will not shut down.

That model is also problematic, and has been for years.  That means that a
misbehaving application can prevent the system from rebooting.

If I issue a shutdown or a reboot, I expect two things out of Windows:

1) I should get a chance to confirm/deny, as well as choose reboot or
shutdown (I don't even use standby on my laptop).

2) Once I've made that choice, it should be honoured without further human
intervention, period.  Once the decision has been formally finalised, it
should result in the equivalent of *nix' methodology of sending soft kills,
then hard kills.

No application should ever be able to stop the shutdown process.  This
would be (and has been, actually) a complete FUBAR in a situation where
you're in over VNC, for instance, try to reboot, VNC goes down, but then
something else wedges the system in an "up" state via the mechanism you
describe.  And there's not a damned thing you can do about it from remote
at that point.

Explain to me how that's good...

mark->
-- 
Audio panton, cogito singularis,