Re: Root privilege (SOLVED)
cga2000 wrote:
>> Root gets the "failsafe" option for X by default? xterm is mandatory in
>> an X install, IIRC.
>
> Please refer to what Roberto has to say about pointy-head activity in
> the enterprise. In the enterprise world there is no guarantee that some
> dude will not decide at some point that it's his best interest that
> *term's are the devil's work and have them autdafe'd at the earliest
> opportunity.
That fell outside my immediate consideration due to a bit of work philosophy
I developed a while back that seems to work out well. "Work like you don't
need the money." Your employer would fire you for acting like a retard
against common sense, and at least in my state, I'm allowed to fire my
employer if they're acting stupid. If I had to work under those conditions
and $EMPLOYER is unwilling to budge, they'd be looking for my replacement
by the end of the same week. This has worked out well for me: I've
tripled my income in three years following my own advice[1].
> But I was talking "proof of concept" .. in the world of the average
> to-the-gui-born user .. and thinking in terms of CD/DVD's that you just
> pop in .. say "yes" to the eula .. click the "next" button a few time ..
> done..
>
> Not likely _that_ crowd would like the idea of starting an xterm..
> typing in a command to launch the installer .. etc. etc.
These people should not be allowed to even have Administrator access on a
Windows box.
> As such I find the X gui model incomplete and although having gui
> installers assume you already have root authority prior to launching
> them may be a lesser evil than the proliferation of password-prompting
> code in the wrong places .. I'm rather convinced by Roberto's
> argumentation .. I find that it's just one more good reason why I'd
> rather stick to the non-gui interface.
I'm not saying that I really feel good about kpackage's handling of it,
either. I seriously question the justification for it's existence given
the user behavior demonstrated by the point-and-drool "administrators" you
describe. Between that and being an X program expecting a root password, I
really think someone needs to justify kpackage's existence before I feel
neutral about it.
[1] Results may not be typical, your results may vary.
Reply to: