Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 26 Apr 2001 21:03:40 +0700 (JAVT) | From | <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Single user linux |
| |
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, [iso-8859-1] Rasmus Bøg Hansen wrote: > > i'd be happy to accept proof that multi-user is a solution for > > clueless user, not because it's proven on servers. but because it is > > a solution by definition. > > Let's turn the question the other way. It's you trying to convince > us, that everyone needs root access. What does a clueless user need root > access for?
what work around what? right now it's the kernel who thinks that root is special, and applications work around that because there's a division of super-user and plain user. is that a must? it's trivial to say that in multi-user system, one user shall not mess with other user. in multi-process, a process shall not mess with other process. but when it comes to a computer which only has one user, why would it stop a user. because the kernel thinks it isn't right? if he felt like killing random process, which is owned by other than the user, is it a wrong thing to do? he owns the computer, he may do anything he wants.
and i'm not even trying to convince anyone. communicating is closer.
> > And if you really want everybody to have access to all files, you can > just do a 'chmod 777 /'. Perhaps set it up as a cronjob to run daily? >
> Besides you write, that a distro shipping single-user is evil. So you > want the clueless user to recompile his own kernel to enable single-user
iff that distro starts up daemons.
> mode (why do at all call it 'single-user' when you still have different
i wrote somewhere that it was my mistake to call it single-user when i mean all user has the same root cap, and reduce "user" (account) to "profile".
imel
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |