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.
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.
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.
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...
Since WW2, the "wars" have been mismatched to the extreme (never mind that in both world wars USA came in late, and never had its industrial capacity threatened).
The closest to a symmetrical war was in Korea, after China sent troops. And that war has never really been resolved.
I suspect that the eternal problem will be that of context.
Back when Google started out, they bet the farm on the idea that more links pointing to a document meant that said document was informative.
These days though, i wonder if what we are looking for is more hair. That what we are looking for depends on a context that can't be properly included in the search terms used.
On top of this "naive" metrics like link counts are no longer a viable measure for what to elevate to the top of the search results.
So when you go from particle physics to chemistry, new complexities emerge that can't be explained in the realm of particle physics alone (iirc).
sadly certain "sciences" still cling to the idea that they can simply aggregate the results from multiple of their "particles" and get a solution for larger systems.