Re: 9p/plumber to replace D-Bus?
Le 12.12.2014 14:54, Richard Owlett a écrit :
I.E. "Who is responsible for the integrity of *MY* system?"
The correct answer is the proverbial "Me, Myself, and I."
It is most definitely not an individual nor group whom I've never
There is most definitely a need for such systems as the vast majority
do not have the needed experience/expertise.
Yes, but, since you post on this list, I would tend to think you are
someone with administration knowledge. At least basic one, especially
since you are here since longer than me, you probably have learn tons of
things from various threads.
For someone which does not even know what is a mailing list, I would
not think that they have or want to have enough knowledge of their
computers to simply understand what installing an application really
Remember: there are people able to trust phishing mails!
And I did not even spoke about the fact that, around here, lot of
people seems unable to feel responsible for their own actions... I would
like to be wrong, or if not, that this feeling is only because I'm in
the wrong place of the world, but I doubt it.
That is how I operate ~100% of the time. Security is a
have the only key to my house. It needs only one password to
of physical malicious access.
What about software you ran as normal user with full rights doing
malicious access to your hardware, thus being able to corrupt
things like UEFI?
Hopefully I would learn from my errors. In any case the
responsibility is mine.
Not everyone is able or want to learn. Plus, to acquire knowledge, you
need to have bases which allows you to do so.
How could I learn what a virus is, if I do not know what a file is? How
could I learn what a worm is, without knowing that applications can
There would be advantages to a
maintenance password to guard me from making careless/dumb
*MY OWN* machine. It would be extremely useful if its kernel
running unmodified Debian packages.
Linux is built as a multi user kernel. I guess any software using
linux specific features, or multi-user based feature, like cups,
for example, would need changes. At least to not try to create
it's own user.
I assumed it would possibly require a quite different core and apt
substitute. How closely tied is content of a Debian package tied to a
Source package, or binary package?
Package installing low level, or high level stuff?
I'll bet on source package, so that I could not argue about the libc.
Hopefully, high-level applications does not depends on linux
kernel-related stuff, but now, we've seen applications recently which
depends on features provided by systemd, which is, AFAIK, not ported on
Also, a cat /etc/passwd could inform you about how many users are
present on your system, but remember that it's only your system: other
systems might have more, or less, depending on what was installed in the
past (do you know that, when you purge a package, it won't remove the
users it added?).
Simple example: databases. They often create their own users. Do you
have any package which depends on a database? I'm not sure, but I think
cups also uses it's own user.
Adapting Debian to a single user system might not be that hard, but I
am quite sure that it will be a ton of work, and that strange issues
will happen here and there.
Now, I've heard about puppy linux, in terms like: users are root. It
might interest you.