After a quick discuss with marco_g on IRC, i started to thing about Why we need a sysadmin. And I realize that only small options on the system need the admin interference. I saw that many people here are very fanatic about security, but what about a system with a admin that put backdoors on programs?
So, if we will design a system where people can fell secure, we need to create a system where the admin has less power as possible. In my opinion, the admin is a user that will be able ONLY to configure some parts of the system that cannot be configured by a user. All other things that the admin needs to do, like run a server, will be done by a common user with no more power than other users. To install programs we can create a mechanism that every user can install programs that will be avaliable to every users. but all programs would be signed on their origin, and if the user trust on that origin, this program will be able to work perfectly, if the user doesn't trust on the origin of the program it will be alerted about that and will choose how this program will run. With no access to FS, with a read-only access to FS or if the user will start to trust on that origin. I know that this is only one case of many thing that a sysadmin does, but this was what wake up this discuss in my mind, so, if you have more things that you beleave that only sysadmin can does, we can start to discuss, thanks. ps.: I do not want to start a monster thread, But I beleave if you want a system almost from scratch, we need to discuss every point of it. -- leonardolopespereira at gmail.com GNU Privacy Guard (GPG) ID da chave: 83E8AFBF | servidor: keys.indymedia.org gpg --keyserver keys.indymedia.org --recv-keys 83E8AFBF
pgpVeI5vOecR9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
