LJ query

[venta]

If I'm logged into LJ, and I open a new browser window, I appear to be logged in in the new window, too. And if I log out from there, it logs me out in both windows.

This didn't used to happen. And I'd like it not to. Have I inadvertently checked some option somewhere which I now can't find, or has something else changed ?

(I'm using IE/Windows 2K)

Comments

[chrisvenus]

ITs a long time since I've last checked this...

AS people said permanent cookies are kept on your hard drive and shared by browsers. However, session based cookies are kept by the process running. This means if you tell LJ never to log out then that is going to be shared by other browser windows (because it writes a cookie to your hard drive). If you use the "Logout when browser closes" it will wait for that process to finish first.

In IE I seem to remember on my setup that clicking the icon to launch IE starts a new process but using ctrl-N or open link in new window opens another window of the same process. This may be what has changed (ie you are just opening them differently to last time you noticed the behaviour) or it may be that they are always opening in the same process.

For directory windows (ie windows explorer) there is an option in tools..folders options.. view called launch process in separate windows. Its possible this affects IE though I don't think it should (I currently have it off and IE does what I think you want) but might as well try if all else fails.

I should end by saying that I'm on win2kpro so my mileage may well vary. If so apologies. :)

[venta.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I use "Logout when browser closes", and usually launch my copies of IE from a shortcut on the taskbar. I haven't deliberately looked into the evil mess of IE options and changed anything recently.

If Windows' task manager is to be believed, then each copy of IE is opening in a new process. I might check whether it still does next time the opening-windows-with-me-logged-in starts happening.

I'm afraid the technical might is falling before the weight of Triskellian's altogether more plausible argument :)

[chrisvenus]

I'm afraid the technical might is falling before the weight of Triskellian's altogether more plausible argument

Can I suggest as a more plausible excuse than pixies (which I assume is the triskellian argument you are talking about)? How about "user error". I think you're just being crap and are in fact doing something consistently different and just haven't noticed. Bound to be the case if you believe in pixies. :)

[triskellian]

Pixies! Pixies! It's all about the pixies!

(A bit more seriously: sometimes computers just do stuff which makes no sense. And I'm now going to try and remember the next time such a thing happens, and post it to see if you have an explanation ;-)

[triskellian]

And speaking of pixies, I'm sure this icon used to have another 'I do' on it, and some animation...

[wimble.livejournal.com]

You mean the bits in the bottom left corner, where first one "I do." and then another "I do!" appear?

It does, it does!

[triskellian]

I do mean that! I do. I do!

And it's working properly for me now I'm at home. Another example of pixies, if you ask me.

[wimble.livejournal.com]

You're using Mozilla at work?

Check to see that you've got (deep breath)

Preferences -> Security & Privacy -> Images -> Animated Images should loop:
As many times as the image specifies

not Once, or Never

[triskellian]

It is set to that. I'm obsessed with icons, remember? And in any case, the frame it was frozen on was neither the first nor the last, so it's an odd place to freeze.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

In my browser, pressing the "stop" button freezes animated images on whatever frame they happen to be at. Maybe yours does too.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

sometimes computers just do stuff which makes no sense

In the trade we call those "bugs". The reason they make no sense is because, by definition, a bug is when a computer isn't behaving the way it's expected to.

[venta.livejournal.com]

Well :p in general, but... at present, the behaviour I'm seeing (ie the one I want - browser window open not-logged-in) is, according to some knowledgable people people above, not possible.

At least, it's not possible if we assume that IE's cookie-handling isn't completely stuffed. Which I'd have thought someone would have noticed by now, if it were.

[chrisvenus]

Well, with all due respect those knowledgeable people are wrong.

Session length cookies are stored on a per process basis usually which means that different processes won't have access to them. If you're on heffajunk you may have seen tommy's question where lots of people assured him that what he wanted couldn't be done. These were all actually people *guessing* what the behaviour would be without actually investigating it. I suspect the same has happened here and peopel are saying what they expect to be the case rather than what they know to be the case.

Umm... That was probably rantier than it needed to be. I'm feelign ranty today though. Grr.. arghh..