Rian Hunter wrote: > On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 10:34, "Sören Schulze" wrote: > > Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > > I know about Xnest and I think it's a good idea, but it does not > > > fix general design lacks in XFree86. > > > > > > Fixing XFree86 is kinda out of the scope of GNU/Hurd... > > > > Of course. > > AFAIK GNU/Hurd will mainly support GGI/KGI instead. > > (doesn't mean it won't support XFree86 any further, but I don't know > ...) > > AFAIK kgi/ggi are just graphic interface layers. Not window systems, If > someone ever gets around to actually providing a KGI type hurd server, > the X server will run in pure user space on that, instead of providing > video drivers (that have always belonged in the "kernel", microkernel + > servers for us). We'll always need X (or some other maybe newer > (fresco!) windowing system). Every desktop O/S needs a window system > (for multiplexing graphic applications within a single console).
X may be outdated, but many programs use it. And please note there's a difference between XFree86 and X(11R6). Do you know about XGGI? > > > Things like these are typical tasks for a console user: > > > - turn off the computer (on desktop machines) > > > > > > Also a typical task for a remote user; atleast w.r.t. to rebooting > > > which is essentially the same with some minor details. > > > > I don't think it is nice any user from network can reboot the system. > > OK, it may be useful if the system I/O is blocked and you have to > reboot, > > but in this case the admin should do that anyway. > > I think you are forgetting that this is UNIX(-like) and not Windows or > Mac OS (traditionally single-user systems). It is perfectly alright for > a root user to reboot the machine whenever he wants or requires, albeit > a little unfriendly. And since I last checked only root was able to > reboot or turn off the system, not "any user". Please don't forget the > goal of the GNU project. What are you referring to? Of course root is supposed to have unlimited rights on a system. But maybe the console user should have similar rights. > > > - access the sound card and the mixer > > > > > > Ditto. I infact use the mixer and play songs remotely each and > > > everyday. > > > > You play songs on computers of other people? May be a nice surprise ... > > Having a raw audio device is comparable to having a raw framebuffer > device. That's why X was created, so maybe you should use a sound server > (or port one) that multiplexes sound output or integrate sound into the > console. So that changing your volume doesn't changes others, or playing > songs, doesn't sound on other's consoles. Playing stops when switching to another tty? Maybe a nice optional feature. Referring to software mixers: I'm afraid the most unified sound interface is still the raw device. :/ > > > Take the example of file-systems, one could quite well argue that one > > > needs console support to set a file-system translator on a "device"; > > > since a physical user put the "device" into the system. > > > > > > But this "device" could be a hard-disk, or just a plain file. Where > > > would you draw the line in this case? > > > > Your example is simple to solve: > > Nobody but root should usually be permitted to set a translator to a > > partition of a physical hard disk. > > So we simply deny any direct access to the HD. > > (perhaps that doesn't work how I expect it to - excuse my lacking > knowledge > > about the Hurd) > > Please Please Please Don't forget the goals of the HURD! It defeats the > purpose of the HURD to only allow root to set translators. It's (almost) completely system-independent whether users should have raw access to the HD, which includes setting translators. Sören -- "Sie haben neue Mails!" - Die GMX Toolbar informiert Sie beim Surfen! Jetzt aktivieren unter http://www.gmx.net/info _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
