On Thursday 11 August 2005 04:55 pm, Randy Kramer wrote: > Thanks! Not sure that's the perfect solution, but it sure sounds like a > step in the right direction--thinking of a way to accomplish something > rather than reasons to not accomplish something. Also, in terms of > numbers, I wonder how many Linux systems have a single (vs. multiple) real > (i.e., human) users? Maybe we need a single user and a multiuser Linux (OS > and kernel?)?
False. Single-user means a single security space. One key reason that Windows is historically so insecure is that it's a single security space, and programs are written to assume that so you really can't operate any other way. If you're splitting admin mode and non-admin mode, then you already have a multi-user system. Artificially limiting the system to just one non-admin accomplishes nothing. I've never had a problem with my multi-user OS used by a single user that has been the result of it being a multi-user OS. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6817012 "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas Jefferson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
