On Fri, 13 May 2005 21:55:17 +0100 Anne Wilson disseminated the following: > > To address the previous posts, I don't see why a distro cannot allow for > > two versions of the kernel, one for people who are setting up their machine > > as a fully functional desktop box, another for those who are setting said > > box up as a server and are perhaps more paranoid about security. Anyhow, > > that's just my somewhat, possibly terribly, misinformed opinion. > > And if it was to be a server would you really be doing burns on it? Sorry, > but I just can't see the sense of this.
Maybe I didn't explain myself very well. I'm thinking of a stage during the install which would offer a choice to the user, like say: 1. Desktop system, used for various multimedia and other purposes, installs a patched kernel that allows for burning as user. 2. Server system, no need for functions such as burning, installs an unpatched kernel that does not allow for burning as user, for whatever security concerns are involved. Make any more sense now? :-) -- JoeHill / RLU #282046 / www.freeyourmachine.org 17:15:32 up 81 days, 18:26, 8 users, load average: 0.13, 0.07, 0.02 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Call on God, but row away from the rocks." -- Hunter S. Thompson
____________________________________________________ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com ____________________________________________________
