[openbeos] Re: Singleuser vs Multiuser

  • From: Dan Sinclair <dj2sincl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:01:18 -0500 (EST)


It's not the fact that it breaks new ground, its that there is a
significant subset of users who need/want the functionality.

Even though you have a multi-user system you *don't* have to use that
functionality.  Look at RedHat 7.2, (I think thats the one) the gdm
program allows you to set a user to always log in as, so you never have to
bother.  For someone else they can login everytime, having the app
protect the data is fine, assuming the programmers wish to add the
functionality, but I'd rather have multiple layers of protection around
myself, I guess I'm really paranoid.

Personally I'd rather not go back to the windows 9x system where anyone
can do anything, do you really want your friends comming over and deleting
all your files?  The ability to have different users is also quite handy
in places where multiple people use the system, each one can't see the
other peoples work.  Not that everyone is using the system at one time,
but they all have private home directories.

It might even be nice to be able to say, user foo may not do the
clone_area call.  I don't know how feasbile that is, but for something
like email attachments if you could setup a user that can only see his
home directory, dosen't have access to any potentially harm full system
calls etc, and then tell your mail client to execute attachments when you
want as user foo would be really handy.

I don't think its an R1 thing, but should be considered now to make the
later integration easier. 

Just my opinion,
dan


On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, David Sowsy wrote:

> 
> 
> >If Apple can do it with MacOS X, then why can't we?
> What men have done, men can do. 
> 
> Why *should* we create a multi-user OS? What new ground does
> it break?
> 
> I hate logging into machines, especially my own. 
> I don't need password protection, I have armed guards standing by.
> (Everyone is paranoid, as they should be, but any protection on data
> should be done on the per-app level, not system wide, because only %5
> or less of most people's data is really worth being under lock and
> key).
> 
> I like booting up my OS and being ready to go. Everyone has their own
> reasons for following  the BeOS route, mine was that it was the most
> Amiga-like OS and NOT a Linux system. If I want to be a power tripping
> mofo and have god-like control of users, I may as well break out my old
> HST modem and start a BBS. :)
>  
> Hell, I don't even want to boot up an OS, I want to just power the machine
> on and off, and no waiting for silly file systems to "shut down", like any
> other stinkin' appliance. My point is, what's the goal here?
> 
> If we want to "leave hooks" so multi-user support can be added on, fine. 
> It doesn't have to all be thrown into R1 or R2...and can be left
> "as an exercise to the student", or create a 3rd party opportunity.
> 
> > Peter
> 
> . *  *      *   .   \|/  *      *     ,   . *   '  *  .
> .   .   *  ,     * --*--    .     `    * ,   .  *  ,  .
> David Sowsy    .    /|\  BeOS Rebel and Coder   .  *  .
> http://dsowsy.nanorevolution.com   .   *   .   *   .  .
> 
> 
> 


Other related posts: