Re: [Desktop] What accounts on a machine?
On Saturday 26 October 2002 23:41, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include <hallo.h>
>
> * Alan Chandler [Sat, Oct 26 2002, 02:36:55PM]:
> > - From a technicians point of view you are exactly correct - but the
> > question I am asking (and if we want to create desktops for the masses we
> > must at least ask the question) does it have to be. Isn't something like
> > administrator a much more logical name for someone not in the know.
My two cents: Root is not a difficult concept for users and "administrator"
is too long. Furthermore, untrained users shouldn't be logging in as root
but rather clicking on icons and/or menu items and being prompted with the
superuser's password. You can change the wording to "Enter the
Administrator's (root) password: ", for dumb-user-friendliness.
>
> Hell, why are you keen on breaking so many technical details? IMHO it is
> easy: Make the Login managers (kdm, gdm) show a list of users (like KDM
> does not), but not with login names only, but in "Fullname (account)"
> form. So a user sees "My Name (mynick)" or "System Administrator(root)"
> and IMHO should get an idea what the accounts are for, even an idiotic
> one.
Showing full names is a good idea--but being able to exclude certain ones
would be very useful. Also, this should DEFINITELY be an optional feature.
gdm offers also a language selection that kdm lacks. The kdm maintainer
hasn't yet been convinced of the need for one--I tried to convince him. He
says it's easy enough just to go into preferences and make the switch once
logged in and doesn't think it belongs in the login manager.
I am running LTSP-based thin clients in my business. I run guest accounts for
anonymous users and other special accounts for paying users. The ability to
also login by mac address is crucial. In our case, each auto-login occurs
after a specified time delay with kdm showing. Then it creates a guest[0-9]
home directory in /tmp from a skeleton "superguest" account. Users can also
logout and login differently.
Please--when considering needs for desktop Linux, consider how they run to
clients over X. Some programs simply don't work such as the game, Trophy.
And sound is a problem, too. Different applications use different mechanisms
for sound (I am told) and so only those through alsa work on my client
machines. I am relaying what others are telling me on sound, because I
haven't looked at it nor do I even understand very much about it. However,
it is important.
LTSP offers Linux one of its best chances on corporate desktops. It could
even work in the home markets. In corporations, it means:
1. Client hardware doesn't go obsolete for a much longer time.
2. Far less hardware is required with extraordinary synergy on the desktop
servers.
3. Windows, MacOS X, and UNIX/Linux software can be simultaneously run on the
clients. (The latest Win4lin even allows single Windows applications to be
run, rather than a whole desktop).
4. Greatly reduced costs in terms of manageability
Home users could have the following benefits:
1. Buy a central home server & add cheap diskless clients for other rooms
2. Preferences set and administered by Dad & Mom for kids
3. Integrate Linux & MacOS X games (that use OpenGL) on single client
terminals
X Windows is like postscript in the sense that it sends instructions on how to
build a screen. This enables scaling, 3D, etc. etc. and less potential
band-width utilization. How many bytes does it take to send a string of text
versus the bytes required for high color-depth pixel grids? This also allows
for use of excelerated 3D on client hardware. Windows absolutely cannot
provide these capabilities.
Matthew
>
> Gruss/Regards,
> Eduard.
--
Matthew C. Tedder
SimpFlex Technologies, Inc.
Reply to: