Norbert Nemec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Great, that's the piece of information I was waiting for! Actually I do not > know any reason, why the login-shell was introduced at all! Why would you > allow any non-logged in user to execute any command but "login"?
Perhaps I (an ordinary user) would like to share some files in my home directory with the rest of the world? With the not-logged-in user concept, I can set the permissions appropriately, and anyone who wants the files can use the not-logged-in shell and get them. The alternative would be to set up something like a webserver, which is massive overkill and less convenient. > Any user who has an account can simply log in and do whatever he > wants to do afterwards, and people who do not have accounts should > not be allowed to do anything! In case you really need anonymous > access, you can simply introduce a "guest" account on your machine, > just as it is done on many Linux machines already. I don't follow you here. On Unix, you can't have a not-logged-in user, and you can choose whether or not to install a guest account. On HURD, you have the not-logged-in user, and you can choose whether or not to give that user shell access. In which way is the Unix way better? I believe the HURD way even has a few advantages: On Unix, to treat the guest specially (for instance, denying read-access to /etc/passwd), you would have to create a special group that all users except the guest user are members of, and I believe it will be quite messy to set up correctly. On HURD, you can simply set the appropriate bits, e.g. on /etc/passwd, to deny read access for guests. Because a guest account is an ordinary user account, as far as the OS is concenrned, the guest has an entry in /etc/passwd. By default, a user is allowed to change his or her passwd entry. You have to somehow disable this for the special guest user, otherwise, anyone logged in as guest could change the passwd or login shell on the guest account, causing trouble for other guests. > For that reason, my suggestion would be, to drop the whole idea about the > login shell, and by that drop all the effort about the fourth permission set! > (Just think how long it will take, until all the tools are modified to > support that feature!) I don't think it's that dificult. As far as I know, you need to modify chmod and ls and perhaps some other programs in the fileutils package. And you need to modify base packages with sensible defaults for the new bit. Am I missing something? /Niels
