Re: Locking down the User Interface

["Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero" <famrom idecnet com>]

kknerrsr ptdprolog net (2000-11-14 at 1935.07 -0500):
> > So is one of those who want to lock user options going to tell me why
> > it is so needed?
> It is needed for kiosk-style operations. Granted, as long as enough
> other items are locked down (shell access, editors, configuration apps)
> it should be manageable. But an applet or global setting here would be
> nice.

Well, if the users want to waste time with that, allow them. You can
nuke the account and create it again, or reset the config for the
account. If it is a kiosk that costs money to use, more money. ;]

If you really need a simple kiosk, I would not choose GNOME, but a
single app (with X?), or maybe two, normal app and fake kbd. I guess
the kiosk market is broad, from map kiosk ("you are here, and your
destination is there") to full Internet application, so maybe GNOME
has a place there.

[Network without 1 person <-> 1 networked account]
> In this kind of situation, a lock-down mechanism only places a facade
> over other bad operational choices.

Instead of doing one thing right, they do two wrong. And they are not
boolean ops. :P I know a similar situation, a friend works as tech
support too, we both still wonder who set the rules at his job, they
do not make much sense and require to many extra work.

> OTOH--there's something to be said for having a known state
> available--without deleting/renaming *all* of the config
> files/directories. This is where the current customization scheme which
> uses absolute paths really makes things difficult for sysadmins.

Yes, I found that very bad when moving user dirs. It forces you to
have the homes always in the same place. Config should use $UID,
$USER, $HOME and other vars, so it becomes portable (from machine to
machine and changes inside the same machine). Also it disallows the
easy use of a template for new users.

GSR