Root v multiuser

[Aitch]

Hi edoc

A method I use with kids windoze PCs is to install ERUNT direct to C:\ & have a boot floppy available - restores most kids 'messes' by restoring the registry from before the 'oops'

http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-onlin ... /erunt.txt


http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/

for puppy copy save file.....

Aitch

[Aronzak]

I had an idea for this kind of problem.

Already puppy has a system to choose between multiple user saves, with different names. What I was thinking is that there could be a new utility to kill X and then do to that system again. Rather that having usernames and passwords, you would have different encrypted saves, and different encryption keys.

Another idea to take this further is to split the save files into 'personal' and 'core' files, with the user's personal app settings and files encrypted, while core files would not be encrypted. This means that multiple people could get access to the same apps installed (but have different settings, if they are configured right).

Then, make a dialogue to easily add another user/save file.

[edoc]

Sounds promising - have you posted the idea over on the developer blog?

[kpfuser]

A very belated vote:

Multiuser.

To begin with, Puppy is already multiuser in some curious way. I am talking about 'Spot.' It is a second user of some sort although it is not clear to me at all what purpose is served by its inclusion in Puppy.

Furthermore making Spot a true limited user in the manner of other Linux distros would not deter the 'root only' aficionados from doing just this, i.e., logging in as root and automatically so if they wish. On the other hand, insisting on 'root only' and keeping Spot in its present state, i.e., a caricature of a limited user, does seem to enforce a 'do as I say and not as you would like to' regime on the rest of us.

Last but not least, I would like to take issue with an earlier post stating that because only a few members voted in this poll, the multiuser issue should be put to rest. Why so? Obviously the last majority does not care whether this issue is decided one way or another. Is abstention to be claimed as a vote for the 'root only' proposition? If so, why?

[edoc]

Since there is no push-mail feature activated on the Forum users are only aware of a new poll or thread if they stumble across it. There is no basis whatsoever to declare that more than a tiny fragment of the Puppy user base ever knew that the poll/thread existed - therefore there was not meaningful measurement of their opinion taken.

I believe that there are now multiple PET's and Puplets which address the multiuser need, so it appears to be moot, as is generally the case in the Open Source world users created what they neeeded.

[Flash]

The only reason I would care one way or another is if it solved (or became) a problem for me. Otherwise, it's like red hair versus bald.

[bill]

May I respectfully point out that the reason most polls are bypassed is simply for the fact that most users don't understand the question ,much less being able to have an opinion.There are some users who of course do have the knowledge to give valid opinions but in my case many post (which I do read) (or try too ) simply don't compute with my limited knowledge and I suspect,I am in the majority. cheers

[bill]

Oh !and by the way Aitch,Thanks for the links to ERUNT which I have flogged to some of my M$ acquaintances.While they are certainly a lot older than children,they sometimes do things that only the children could explain ! cheers

[kpfuser]

Since there is no push-mail feature activated on the Forum users are only aware of a new poll or thread if they stumble across it.

This was exactly so in my case.

I believe that there are now multiple PET's and Puplets which address the multiuser need

Would anyone be able to direct me to some (as many as possible actually) such Pupplets other than Grafpup whose creator (Nathan F) has stopped supporting it? I must confess however that the purported multiplicity of such Pupplets sounds too good to be true because Nathan F states in a blog of his that for a multiuser pupplet to work well, developers must rewrite their programs so as to make them capable of running from a limited user account. This statement of Nathan F caused me to lose all hope of ever seeing a real multiuser puppy. Now if I were to be proven wrong on this, I would be truly delighted.

[cretsiah]

first of all i like the root user thing of puppy

ok i am wondering if a menu setting that used to be around (i cant remember which puppy it was in) could be moved to being run after the first save file...

the feature im talking about used to be to allow you to choose which sfs files u wanted.to use at boot.(upto a max of 3 from memory). so this may still stuff up for the hd install...

my idea for those that wanted multi user type feature (maybe usefull for the developers who start with a preset of tools)

the protocols:
an IF function that looks for the pup_save files (yes i know its there but hang with me for a tick),
- so on first boot it runs as the live-cd
after the first shutdown and reboot with a save file it auto loads the savefile (my example will be pup-save-cretsiah)
for those wishing for several pupsaves
when the second and third pupsave files come up.
u get a gui that allows you to select the 1 u want..kinda like the grub menu i suppose....witht he ability to still select upto 3 sfs files...

example:
cretsiah
ttuuxxx
Lobster
Development

so the cretsiah folder could be my browser, irc chatting window
ttuuxxx could be my kids folder
Lobtser could be my music and vids
and Development could be for the compiling/configuring needs i want which stays clean....
of course those names r only for examples...ppl could still name them what ever they liked....

its not so much a multiuser in the sense that they all need passwords and such....just that they load up as root with the presets you have put in them by clciking on 1 of the pupsave files rather than having to remember the name or type it in...

the idea being that the seperated pup_save files act like seperate user accounts....

maybe im just rambling for nothing though....

[cretsiah]

youcould also maybe make the gui multitabbed...

ie the first tab being the pupsave file name
the second tab could be for a seocond sfs ie open office and/or maybe a file/partition ie music with executable but no write privledge..
the third could be an sfs ie security checker or another partiton ie video's with executable but no write privledge
this is based on the non automounting of drive partitions of course. so in effect by not having all sfs's or hd/files mounted at startup you could theoretically control damage to your system...
and by having for instance a child selecting the open office sfs (hopefully for their school work) they could have the music mounted to listen as they worked...it would mean they wouldnt need to go fishing thru all the partitions for what they wanted ....theoretically controlling what they could damage if the whole system is open to them whether its their fault or not...