At Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:58:54 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 04:10:19AM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > > On Friday 28 October 2005 07:10 pm, Jonathan Shapiro wrote: > > > It is a curious thing that people simultaneously want safety from the > > > admin > > > and help from them. Sometimes you have to pick one or the other. > > > > You are right. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is the truth. So I > > repeatedly claim that balancing is the key point in making decisions. > > Still, telling people "I am the owner of this computer, you can use it, and I > am not technically able to spy on you or change your things, except if you > give me your password" should be understandable for "normal" people. When > they know this, they will also know that asking the the owner to change their > data without remembering their password will result in a negative response. > They may not like that, but I think they consider it a good idea to be > protected from the sysadmin. And if they don't, nothing stops them from > installing a back door for him. That is, this can be realised on a per-user > basis. That sounds like a good idea to me. :-)
I don't buy this argument. It seems pretty easy to me to implement su. You just need the help of the session manager: if a task holds the super user capability, it can retrieve a capability to any user's session. Or am I missing something? Thanks, Neal _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
