On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 04:30:08AM -0500, Samuel Klein wrote: > Understood. None of these valid concerns sound like reasons to obfuscate it - > obfuscation doesn't solve the problem Sean mentions. > > For instance, you could have a version of terminal that let you explore but > didn't let you write anything to disk; until you toggled a menu preference. > > At present a number of commonly-used XO recipes start with "find the Terminal > activity" or, less safe yet, tell users how to pull up the root shell. > > S
Can these Terminal uses be turned into an activity with a simple menu like: delete Sugar Journal, etc. And if you want to 'learn some commands', then maybe a Terminal activity in a 'sandbox' (would a chroot do that?) vs work on the XO file system -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux ==.| http://kevix.myopenid.com......| | : :' : The Universal OS....| mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/.| | `. `' http://www.debian.org/.| http://counter.li.org [#238656]| |___`-____Unless I ask to be CCd,.assume I am subscribed._________| Ralph's Observation: It is a mistake to let any mechanical object realise that you are in a hurry. _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel