On Mon, 2 Jul 2012, Michael Williams wrote:
To add to what you said, I think we should definitely have fine
grained access control to system-wide configuration. The idea of a
shared server resource between individuals has been dawning on me, so
I really want a way for people to share their FBx with other people,
and still let everyone configure their own services. This same concept
should expand to any type of server, not just plug servers.
Thanks for the reply!
To me the most appealing way to have multiple hosted individuals on a
single box would be to create lightweight virtual machine containers for
them so that each user gets a proper login and can fully customize their
environment. I don't know if this is feasible on the DreamPlug hardware, I
ran in to trouble getting LXC up and running.
I don't know anything about existing strong access control mechanisms for
systems configuration (windows registry? d-bus? something gnome?
android?), and it seems like too much to build in a day or two, so next
week i'll probably just go ahead with a single user system.
About the current Plinth set-up, I'm interested in making a per-module
platform using zeromq (http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all) and zerorpc
(https://github.com/dotcloud/zerorpc-python) instead of python
modules. I like the idea of allowing services to be written in any
language they want, as long as they abide by a common message-passing
protocol. I can imagine the topology being:
client -> front-end -> per-user service -> per-user/per-module service
OR
client -> front-end -> system-wide/per-module service.
I don't understand the motivation. I guess I assumed Plinth modules would
be very small user interface wrappers around existing services or tools
which are already written in many languages.
-bryan
_______________________________________________
Freedombox-discuss mailing list
Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
