May I quote you? That you have a crystal ball that can look into the future? Sure why not. But only if you make this crystal ball avaiable for everyone to look into.
You said once software wasn't something magic. ;) And I still claim that it isn't; claming that it is shows that one does not understand what software is and what it does. Software is made by human decisions, and what I told you was also told me by human persons. Once again I urge you to read what I have written, software is not magic and more or less claiming that you have a crystal ball that will tell what people will use in the future are two completely different things. > (doesn't mean it won't support XFree86 any further, but I > don't know ...) > > X11 must be supported as long as X11 programs are used and as > long as the GNU desktop, GNOME, uses X11. XFree86 != X11 Never said that it was. XFree86 is a implementation of X11, so anything that runs on XFree86 will run on any other X11 implemenation. Have a look at XGGI. Yes, lets, xggi-1.6.2.tar.gz 15-Oct-2000 20:52 26K I would call the project dead. And since it is just a patch for XFree86, then by your claim that XFree86 is a hack this makes xggi a hack... > You could also hack all the programs to use a user-specific > logfile. Happy hacking. > > Wrong, just fix syslogd (and/or syslog()) so that it can write to > a specific user-file. All sane programs use this to report log > messages. Then the log-monitor can watch that user-file. OK, happy hacking and recompiling. Why do I need to recompile anything anyway? glibc implements syslog, so I only need to recompile glibc; and all programs will magicly support this wonderful feature. As for hacking, your idea requires far more "hacking" then just extending _one_ library call to dump logs into a seperate file based on what UID a process is being run as. But I doubt end-user-space programs use syslog(). Anything (sane) that wishes to write to a log file uses syslog(). > Yes, Paxillus, the music box, is not my computer. You send a > song to it, it puts it on a stack, and pops it when the song is > to be played. You can also log in on a port and set the volume > remotely. But wouldn't you also be able to change the volume when another one is playing a song? Would that be nice? Yes it would, that you cannot see what it wouldn't be nice is not my problem. Take the scenario that someone cranked up lots of music on a very loud volume setting, should I not be allowed to lower it? > You may be annoyed if another one starts an X server on your > machine ... > > Why should I be first of all? And how is this different from starting > a ssh daemon running as a normal user on port >1024? Or any kind of > daemon, which would include a X server into that set. Are you going > to tell people what they are allowed to run and what they are not > allowed to run? That's usually an admin's task. That it is usually the administrators task is irrelevant. What I'm talking about are only features, that may be disabled. If you talk about features that can be _enabled_ (which they already can), then this disucssion is moot since I won't object to such things. You are the owner of /dev/dsp? No. > Every user can become root, they can use a sub-hurd or even a > emulator. Wonderful. Being root may be a pleasure, but getting permissions on the parent machine may be even better. Huh? What are you talking about? > Huh? It is the "tty driver" that is providing this information; > just what you wanted. And infact, you can do it simpler, > /dev/tty is always the currently controled tty by a interactive > processes. > > In your shell you can type: tty, to see which tty is being used. Unfortunately the XFree86 hack is too bad too support it. Why don't you back up these claims? `tty' for example shows perfectly well which tty is being used by a xterm. For "pure" X programs, you can check that by checking which windows is being currently focused. In ratpoison, my window manager of choice, what window is being shown can be checked with the following key combo: A-q i (A-q is the escape seqence which usually is C-t I belive). He is a troll because he only tells destructive stuff in a "Linux" forum. That does not mean that the person is a troll if the things he say are correct. Or that you disagree with them. Calling names is always bad taste. "When you do basic file operations [I think he meant mv in this case], the ACL information of this files may be lost." Because this probobly is correct, mv cannot preserve permissions over all scenarios. You can't do that if you are not the owner of the file, or root. And I might agree that this could be considered a broken behaviour... > And that only root should be able to set a translator on a device > node that happens to be a real hard disk, is utterly stupid. It > goes against ever sense of logic out there, if someone owns a > node, then that person should be allowed to do whatever they > please to it, _PERIOD_. I don't know what kind of data you store on your HD, but in some cases, it may be bad anybody is allowed to set translators to any not-mounted partitions. I urge you a _third_ time to read what I wrote, I never said or implied that _ANYONE_ should be able to do anything. I said that the _OWNER_ of the node should be allowed todo anything to said node. Jeez... _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
