 |
Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com "THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in|
The time now is Wed 19 Jun 2013, 02:54 All times are UTC - 4 |
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives |
|
Multiuser Puppy 4.2.1
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga |
 
|
View_previous_topic :: View_next_topic |
| Page 3 of 6 Posts_count | Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next |
| Author | Message | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
richard.a
 Joined: 15 Aug 2006 Posts: 510 Location: Adelaide, South Australia |
Pizzasgood You have done a great job here. Thanks mate. I saw earlier that you weren't going to do this for other puppies; wondering, though, if you would be able to do an add-on (pupget or something) that contains the extras needed to do this? Like Warren did with the EZ-pup updater he built. Have tried the first version and got similar problems to your correspondents sent in, so felt shouldn't merely repeat others comments. However have downloaded R1 ISO so hope to look in another day or so. It looks nice on the AspireOne - as nice as on a 19inch monitor 
Thanks again Richard where the crows fly backwards to keep the dust out of their eyes _________________ Have you noticed editing is always needed for the inevitable typos that weren't there when you hit the "post" button?  |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
Pizzasgood
 Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 6270 Location: Knoxville, TN, USA |
The problem with just making an addon is that the system scripts are where the most complicated modifications are. At the same time, those are the files most likely to change between versions. A .pet could theoretically do it by applying patches to modify those files rather than replace them. But as soon as a line of a script that was modified in a patch gets changed in a version of Puppy, the patch would no longer work and I'd get a bunch of people begging for an updated version of the patch. If you look at the how-to thread I linked to in the first post, I did provide packages of the additional software I packaged or wrote, along with archives of many of the files that I modified. But I decided not to bother trying to automate the procedure. Besides the issue I mentioned, where you know that it failed, doing things automatically could lead to situations where a change between versions introduced some code that the addon doesn't catch. In that circumstance it would look like it worked. Maybe it would even boot and run properly. But there could be a subtle bug somewhere that would only come up in rare situations and be hard to diagnose. And it would be very bad if the user's motivation in using it was security related, because he could have all kinds of holes without knowing it. So that would make releasing such a thing almost feel negligent on my part. And anyway, that would take even more time and energy, which I would much rather apply to other projects now that I've accomplished my goal here. _________________ Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib  |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
richard.a
Joined: 15 Aug 2006 Posts: 510 Location: Adelaide, South Australia |
Fair enuff mate. I totally understand
Take care. Richard where we went from winter to summer within 24hrs... the cats were indoors yesterday for the indoors warmth; today they are indoors because of the heat outside
_________________ Have you noticed editing is always needed for the inevitable typos that weren't there when you hit the "post" button? |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
stevoomba
 Joined: 05 May 2005 Posts: 67 Location: Rye Park NSW |
It's always puzzled me why Puppy's never had the multi-user option. I'm quite happy to be root, but I don't see why there shouldn't be the option to go multi even in the official releases. Thanks for the work PG. Steve |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
richard.a
Joined: 15 Aug 2006 Posts: 510 Location: Adelaide, South Australia |
From what I've read, the original intention of the distribution was to have the fastest possible loading time, while running as a live distribution - in effect a diskless machine. The less code that has to be loaded at boot-up, the faster it will run. And apart from the possibility of deleting the whole file system tree by a root user, there could be no security problems. That tree being located in memory, copied from the CD, it would be restored immediately on reboot. The rest of this post may be slightly off-topic but is provided to explain the antagonism that exists over root user. Having spent several years assisting with the development of another so-called "root only" system - which actually was a misnomer because it did provide multi-user facilities - it's interesting to note that its very wide user base never had one reported - or even one anecdotal - incident of invasive access by the actions of a cracker (NOT hacker). Regardless of that, there will always be a vocal minority who will be determined to force their views on those who actually have "been there, done that" as it is called. FYI I was assisting with the testing and release of several BSD-Unix versions over a couple of years or so at one time, and I got into really hot water through suggesting on their forum that a range of nicely coloured red wallpapers (backgrounds) for those who chose to use a GUI login as root, along with instructions on how to convert root GUI prohibition to root GUI enabling, and vice-versa, in Gnome and KDE was available on my website for those who wanted to exercise their own personal choice... for example ubuntu which by default does not allow root logins, vs Sun Java Desktop Linux which does (both of these are Gnome-based). http://micro-hard.dreamhosters.com/root_wallpaper http://micro-hard.dreamhosters.com/root_GUI_login There was such an uproar by the vocal minority that I shifted my interest elsewhere. _________________ Have you noticed editing is always needed for the inevitable typos that weren't there when you hit the "post" button? |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
WarMocK
 Joined: 05 Jul 2007 Posts: 169 |
And those who make up this minority are the people who give the rest of the linux community a bad reputation. 
I had enough discussions about that with other people when they asked me "how good this Linux thingy actually is". And right now, some of them are actually using various Linux distributions occationally, which is better than if they were still sticking to Windows only. There are enough people out there who would give Linux a chance, but are scared off by those wannabe-hackers who fear to lose their "elite" status if Linux gets too userfriendly and eventually reaches the masses. Puppy Linux is PRETTY userfriendly when compared to other distros (okay, I am a former gentoo user, so anything is probably more userfriendly to me xD), but it still has lots of edges and stuff that needs some touch-up. And multi-user capabilities are a good addition imho, even if you don't need it personally - others may do for various (plausible) reasons, and you have to think about those epople as well if you want to get more feedback and drivers from the hardware vendors. I'd love to see Puppy Linux 5.x offering optional multi-user support, but that's just me. It definitely wouldn't hurt. |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
8-bit
 Joined: 03 Apr 2007 Posts: 3033 Location: Oregon |
In setting up a new user, if the new user is not allowed to shut down the computer, none of his work gets saved. Also, If he cannot mount a usb flash stick, he cannot save his work externally. So is there a way to lock the user out of accessing drives already installed and still give him the ability to mount and unmount drives added by him? Just my thoughts.. |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
maxtothemax
Joined: 21 Oct 2009 Posts: 2 |
Is there a good way to allow ordinary users to run the "connect" script? EDIT: I've been poking thru the files on the PuppyLinux installation, and I can see that most of the applications are implemented as shell scripts. It should be easy to edit the appropriate scripts, add "sudo" to the right commands within those scripts, then give no-password permission for those commands in the sudoers file. I'm working on the net-setup.sh and wag-profiles.sh files right now but I really don't know too much about hacking puppy linux. I'm not exactly sure what other files I may need to modify and if I will need to make any other changes (although thankfully the scripts look well-written.) Perhaps a real puppy linux developer would have an easier time of it than me? |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Pizzasgood
Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 6270 Location: Knoxville, TN, USA |
Basically the idea is that if you for example give people SSH access to your server, you probably don't want to let them poweroff the server on their own. People logging in with SSH generally are not within arms reach of the server, so manually hitting the button isn't an issue. As for limiting the mounting of specific partitions, yes, you can do this. All you have to do is edit /etc/fstab and remove the "group" option for any partition that you don't want users to be able to mount/unmount. Any new partitions that are detected will automatically be given the group option. @maxtothemax: Wouldn't it be easier to just use sudo to run the network wizard itself, rather than modifying it for all the little parts? Or does it not work that way? I have no experience with sudo, besides when I installed, configured, and tested it last weekend. I'm thinking you should be able to configure sudo so that anybody in the "network" group (which you'd have to create) could run "sudo /full/path/to/network_wizard", and then set up a wrapper script that runs that command and replace the "connect" icon with that. _________________ Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
maxtothemax
Joined: 21 Oct 2009 Posts: 2 |
Sorry, I should have explained-- I'm going to be turning this laptop over to a six-year-old girl as soon as I'm done setting it up. The wrapper script would work I guess, but its hardly elegant in my opinion. I could clobber that together as a contingency but I'd prefer to do it "right" if I can. |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
Eyes-Only
 Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: La Confederation Abenaquaise |
. _________________ *~*~*~*~*~* Proud user of LXpup and 3-Headed Dog. *~*~*~*~*~* Edited_time_total |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Pizzasgood
Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 6270 Location: Knoxville, TN, USA |
Thanks.
I kind of think that using a single sudo command to run the wizard would be more correct than embedding a bunch of sudo commands into the scripts. Seems more secure to me. _________________ Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
timremy
Joined: 27 Jun 2009 Posts: 238 |
hello pizzasgood i would like to ask, i might be wrong, but with your pupplet, when i start my computer and if i am running multiuser, i can configure the program to ask for a login? thankyou timremy |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
technowomble
 Joined: 11 Oct 2007 Posts: 76 Location: West Gloucestershire, UK |
Hi pizzasgood, I'm running Multiuser Revision 1 as a full install on a Dell Latitude laptop - 192Mb RAM, 6Gb HD if that has any relevance - and if I try to create a user useradd fails to create a home directory with error code 3. I'm trying to create a user on a new install, and having looked at useradd it looks as if I should be able to create a user in a terminal by entering the appropriate parameters. Any thoughts on why the wizard isn't working or what I need to input in a terminal? TIA. |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Pizzasgood
Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 6270 Location: Knoxville, TN, USA |
@timremy: Yes. Menu->Setup->Autologin Wizard. @technowomble: Not sure why that would happen off the top of my head. One possibility is that you tried making a user with a capital letter in his name. I think it only likes lowercase letters for usernames. According to the man page, error code 3 means "invalid argument to option" but I'm not sure how you could have given it an invalid argument. Did you use spaces? You can't have spaces in a user name. To do it from the terminal you would do this, assuming the user you were adding was named 'bob' and you don't want him assigned to any groups:
To add bob to some groups, for the useradd command you would do something like this instead:
otherwise you could add him to the groups later with this:
_________________ Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Page 3 of 6 Posts_count | Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next |
|
|
View_previous_topic :: View_next_topic |
|
Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives |
Rules_post_cannot Rules_reply_cannot Rules_edit_cannot Rules_delete_cannot Rules_vote_cannot You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum |
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group