2009/12/15 mac_v <[email protected]>: > If someone other than the user is having access to a user account , > there are bigger concerns than the guest updating the system. >
Sure, but the topic of conversation is update manager, not "local access is bad, all bets are off". > The guest[in this case the child] could delete important work files and > do more damage. Sure they could, but again the topic is Update Manager and whether operation of it should require an authentication token. > Why is updating harmful? I can think of a few reasons:- 1) I'm in the middle of work and don't want firefox to become unstable as it does after an update 2) I'm running current_stable_release-1 and don't want someone to hit the "There's a new release available, upgrade!" to take me to the next release 3) I am running a development release and want to be careful about which updates I put in as I am testing. 4) After an update I don't want a dialog box kicking around in the middle of my screen offering to "Reboot now" with a 3 year old kid at the wheel. Whilst this isn't a usual scenario, yes I should lock my machine, the whole point of using a password on Update Manager for me is to prevent someone other than the system admin (whoever that is) from doing "bad things" to the _system_, not my data. > Well , parental control is a different issue. But when we are dealing > with user accounts , why bother users for passwords. > I'm not saying parental controls is the prime driver, I was merely using that as an example of a non admin user wanting a system level change to the computer, and the authentication being done without having to:- a) switch to another logon (time consuming, resource intensive) b) switch to a console (not friendly) Cheers, Al. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
