This post should really go under the category: what were they thinking?
In our company we use a product that for licensing reasons really wants to make sure that only a single instance of the application is running. One of the things the developers have done to ensure this, is not allowing the application to be started on a remote desktop session. Otherwise: you could install the program on a single machine and let multiple users initiate remote sessions on that machine and this violate the license agreement. Now I'm not saying I agree with this type of licensing setup, but the software is pretty good and we want to make sure we're not doing anything illegal with it.
So what we came up with was setting up a server with the software and then asking developers needing the tool to connect to the console session on that server using Windows' Remote Desktop Connection. The console session is (from the little that I understand of it) the first session that is started on a machine. So even on a terminal services server, there is only one console session. Connecting to it is quite simple from a command prompt:
mstsc /console v:machinename
The chances of two of our users needing access to the tool at the same time are pretty slim, so this setup actually worked for us quite well for the last year or so. Until last week that is.
Suddenly I was getting reports from one of my team members that he couldn't start the tool due to a licensing error. He checked and double checked, but seemed quite sure that he was using the correct command line. I walked up to the server myself and tried to start the tool - it started without problems. So I left the tool running for him and told him to try again. He did... and said the tool wasn't there when he connected!
Anyone with enough experience with multi-session machines knows that this means the remote desktop was in another session than the one I started the application in. But how could that be? My team member clearly told mstsc to connect to the console session.
A few Google searches later, I found the answer. Now keep in mind: the problem occurred and was solved last week. But just writing about it here, still makes me angry - very angry with some people at Microsoft.
What happened is that a team at Microsoft found out that there was a security issue with the way terminal services worked. So they changed the logic of console vs. administrative sessions for security reasons. Nothing wrong with that - I appreciate security as much as the next guy.
So they now separate the real session 0 from the first GUI session. Sounds good. I am no security expert so I don't know if it helps, but I'll take their word for it. But they didn't stop at that. Somebody then also decided that the /console option of the remote desktop client should not be called /console anymore. After all you might not be always be able to connect to the console anymore - on newer servers it would connect you to the first, typically administrative GUI. So they relabeled the "console" session to the "administrative" session. Relabeling is not wrong - I appreciate clarity as much at the next guy.
So instead of calling
mstsc /console /v:servernameyou should now use
mstsc /admin /v:servername. All clear - nothing wrong with that.
All of this so far is fine and can be explained to anyone. But this of course leaves one decision to be made: what do you do with the existing
/consoleoption? What do you do with all those existing scripts that might already use
mstsc /consolein the expectation that they end up connected to the console session?
And this is where they did something that I don't understand, that I really, REALLY, REEEAAAALLLY don't understand. They decided to in some cases start ignoring the
/consoleoption. So with some versions of the remote desktop client, using
mstsc /consolewill end you up in the console/admin session. And in other versions of the remote desktop client, using the same command will end you up in a completely normal session.
Even after a week of thinking about it, I still don't understand why somebody would decide to silently start ignoring the
/consolea command line switch that users might depend on. The switches of a command line tool are pretty much the API that you expose to the outside world. Whole build scripts have been built against command line tools based solely on the fact that the switches that are there will not change. Switches might be added, but nothing ever gets dropped. Except at Microsoft I guess. There some genius decides that in some cases they would start silently ignoring the
/consoleoption on the command line. See this post on the exact behavior in all cases or read this one for non-Windows-2008 servers. Don't expect to understand the logic after that, but at least it is clear that they've spent a lot of time on this change. And after last week: so have I.
I know not to expect an apologetic phone call from Redmond on this, nor do I really expect them to change the behavior of the mstsc client. Instead I'll just warn my fellow programmers and be on the lookout for remote desktop sessions that don't behave like I expect them to.
Ok... time to breath in and breath out, count to ten and do my exercises. And get back to work of course. Now what was I working on?