Re: X and other visions

[Sören Schulze]

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    Starting X does not make sense from a remote machine.
> 
> Starting X sessions remotly makes perfect sense, which is what I am
> talking about.  Fireing up a X server remotely makes also perfect
> sense, take the example that the X server crashed or you upgraded it
> or whatever.

Starting an X server remotely makes sense in the case it's on the remote
display.
Killing an X server is usually a task for root because the process owner is
root.

> [...]

>    The point is that the separation is not on a user basis.  Whoever
>    happens to login at the console should be allowed to use the sound
>    card, the floppy drive, the tape streamer, the graphics card, etc.
>    All others should not.
> 
> Says you. I sure want to do my remote backs up without having to sit
> at the console of the backup machine.
> 
> This whole allowing users to do thing depending on if they have loged
> in locally or not is totally a stupid topic and quite pointless.  You
> are essentially asking for users to be treated differently even if
> they are the same user; utter stupitidy.  Users should be treated
> based on the permissions they have, not on what machine they have
> loged in on.

You trust in the users too much.
Just in case a user is evil and reboots the machine before asking anybody
else who is logged in. Wouldn't that be annoying?

OK, a better example:
You are the console user and have put a floppy with secret data in your
device.
Now it makes sense you can access the floppy as non-root user, but any other
users shouldn't.

>    > Why?  And how do you decide what needs "console intervention" and
>    > what doesn't?  Isn't the point of GNU/Hurd to allow users to do
>    > whatever they might wish to do without screwing up for others?
> 
>    As with all operating systems, everything should be possible.  It's
>    up to the system administrator to choose what (s)he wnats.
> 
> And the point of the Hurd is to allow the user to decide what they
> wish to do without screwing up for others.  Not having the sysadmin
> decide what they should be allowed todo.  Thats the whole point of the
> GNU project, more freedom to users.

So the goal of the GNU project is

chmod -R a+rwx /

?!?

It's always the admin's decision to deny or allow something, regarding the
convenience for the users and the potential security risk on the other hand.

Though if you're talking about a stand-only machine, you may be right.

Sören

-- 
+++ Jetzt WLAN-Router für alle DSL-Einsteiger und Wechsler +++
GMX DSL-Powertarife zudem 3 Monate gratis* http://www.gmx.net/dsl