Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Nathan F · Posted: Tue 27 Mar 2007, 13:03 Post subject:

The Kdrive server (Xvesa) would be far easier to configure individually for each user because it does not read a global config file. Instead you pass it all arguments on the command line, including resolution. Not that it isn't possible with Xorg, it's just probably not as easy (and I've never investigated how because I haven't ever wanted to).

Gn2 · Posted: Tue 27 Mar 2007, 15:06 Post subject:

Rationale is well understood - as is better alternatives:

Think group/wheel etal.
Then think Sys admin often owns wheels in danger of falling off

There is a REASON it is optional utility, not S.O.P.
For most "Sys Admins" sudo should have been spelt sloth.

They have yet to learn- playing w/own system does not translate:
Savoire sa lecon into insousciant "Don't put beans in your ears" !

richard.a · Posted: Fri 30 Mar 2007, 20:29 Post subject:

As a non-technical power user who has interfaced with other operating systems apart from Microsoft's over a number of years, may I make a few comments, trying to stay within the guidelines Nathan outlined in his first post.

Running as root does not frighten me, indeed I find it extremely frustrating with some operating systems I've tried where they go out of their way to prevent you from using the system in the way that you - the owner of it - wish and choose to do.

My experience shows that providing you are careful with how you use your computer, and what you do with it, it is no more or less likely to get invaded, blown up, or destroyed by running as user or root.

I accept the thoughts that as root you can del /*.*

However, if you run puppy in the way it was designed - an unimaginably fast Live-CD system, that keeps all the files it loads from read only by virtue of the media sitting in a read only CD drive, you can't destroy the OS by using puppy.

If you let a nastie in, so what, in actual fact. It isn't going to change anything except what is in RAM or swap file.

If you maintain your own personal file (read-write on an HDD) with regular backups, then if that does get destroyed, even then, so what?

I always back up my work as I go, and at the end of a session most times. Something when I taught AutoCAD users back in Version 2 days I continually emphasised.

With puppy you can restore a clean system and data in simple steps

1. reboot in pfix=ram mode,

2. copy back your pup_save.2fs (or 3fs) file and

3. then reboot again using the restored pup_save file.
It isn't hard, difficult, or really time-consuming.

Multiple users is another thing altogether. I wouldn't want others to browse through my documents, perhaps changing things, or deleting them.

Actually I developed a series of red-coloured root user wallpapers to suit a range of computer OS's (I won't call them distributions because that upsets Unix users - BSD anyway lol). I have published these explaining how SuSE gives its system owners the opportunity to use default wallpaper that continually reminds them of being "root". You should read some of the comments from some on the forums I've shared this information with!!

It isn't hard to make root logins work in KDE even if they've been prevented. Ubuntu is Gnome, and that's a dog of a different colour. I don't like Ubuntu anyway (not for that reason, lol)

I don't like having to keep entering the root password if I'm doing a task that needs root and I am only allowed to do it sudo. It is counter-productive.

You might be interested in looking at my "root wallpaper" page here but don't come back and flame this thread as you will incur Nathan's wrath as he laid down the ground rules in the first post. Like I did in the PC-BSD forums, but that didn't stop the slashdot types lolol Smile

You might even like to look at the (currently four) pages of responses to that thread here.

Richard
Downunder

Nathan F · Posted: Fri 30 Mar 2007, 23:58 Post subject:

That's not a bad idea, and you gave me a good reminder. I used to have my system set up something like this, and also had things arranged so root used different gtk themes and such. That way even running just one program as root you can tell it visually. I also have my root shell prompt set up a bit differently (besides the standard $ for users, # for root). On the one machine root's shell prompt is always red, while everyone else gets plain green.

Anyway this is good advice for most situations. I need to institute this in my own projects as well.

Nathan

jimhap · Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 63

Another reason Puppy REALLY NEEDS multiuser rebuild.......

Lots of software require multi user......
If you don't they say:

John Doe · Joined: 01 Aug 2005 Posts: 1689 Location: Michigan, US

*bump*

DavidBell · Joined: 24 Nov 2006 Posts: 132

I was just wondering the last couple of days, could you do a frugal/multisession multiuser just by swapping pup_save files? My undestanding is these files contain all your settings and docs (if you save into it).

So if it found pup_save_david.2fs and pup_save_johnny.2fs both in mnt/home it would just pop up a dialog and let you select the one you want, the same as it does now when it finds .sfs files there. Maybe a SaveNow for frugals could have an option of making a new pup_save.

I guess it would have to be earlier in the boot process so things like XOrg setting would stick etc.

I can't really follow it, but maybe this is what people are already suggesting above? Seems easy from my amateur perspective.

David

richard.a · Posted: Fri 03 Aug 2007, 21:02 Post subject:

David,

Two things...

1 -- I've found that in many cases, regardless of what computer hardware has been seen when a pup_save.(x)fs file is created - ie even if it wasn't the machine you are currently seated at (with different hardware etc) that you can use that file in the new location with probably little more than having to run xorgwizard over again.

2 -- I have even copied the same pup_save.(x)fs file under several different names to the same drive filesystem root directory, for subsequent editing into specific different configurations.

You probably need to remember to keep evident in the filename the version of puppy, because otherwise you run the risk of destroying the configuration by accidentally upgrading to a more recent version. Like this...

DavidBell · Joined: 24 Nov 2006 Posts: 132

minoruhackerguy · Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Posts: 31

*Sigh* Boy, people have such misconceptions about hackers. Confused

Ok, basically, hacking is not breaking into others computers. That's cracking (CRiminal hACKING). Or, if you prefer, black hat hacking. MOST hackers aren't like what you here about on tv. *If you google search ethical hacking, you'll see what I mean.* Hackers test security with consent. There are even government issued hacking licenses. Besides that, 9 out of 10 cracker only know enough to cause a little trouble. In order to hack a linux box, you need a lot of skill. I agree completely with making a multiuser puppy. But really, it IS like.. impossible to hack a linux computer. The only way it's possible is by users making extreme changes to security or using things like IM clients that are old and insecure. *Even then, you normally can't cause much damage*

Still it would be nice to know that, if a cracker got into the computer, it would be hell for them to cause damage.[/b]

stevenbinion · Posted: Fri 07 Mar 2008, 13:18 Post subject:

I'm glad I found this thread. will be quite useful.

Farwater · Joined: 24 Mar 2008 Posts: 28 Location: Singapore

Hi everyone!
Glad to meet you!

I'd like to continue describing the solution on multiple users proposed by monkeyweb. What'd like to show here is how to extend his idea to actually use all the programs like openoffice or sound mixer. And thus to create a truly usable second user account with fuctionality restricted only for security reasons. This is what I'm currently using on my puppy 3.01 installed onto my HD (not frugal).

Create a decent home directory for spot user

Farwater · Joined: 24 Mar 2008 Posts: 28 Location: Singapore

In my original post above I used the idea to change the user's permissions, however later I changed the code to focus on group permissions.

This way the whole group spot can now run X with applications. It means that now we are not limited by a single user any longer - we can add more !

So, let's add them! Currently I'm writing a script for generating X-applications capable user accounts automatically. The script is based on the method proposed above - just automated for our convenience.

Farwater · Joined: 24 Mar 2008 Posts: 28 Location: Singapore

The script is ready.

The usage is as follows:

Farwater · Joined: 24 Mar 2008 Posts: 28 Location: Singapore

I apologize before the one who already have downloaded the script. I found a small, but very nasty mistake in it which prevented users from writing into their own directories. It's not even a bug - it's just I forgot to add one more line to the current file.

Now the file is updated and I can assure you that it works properly !!!