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
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
> 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
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 21:00:16 EST