[opensuse] Suse 10.2, Gnome, switch users
Hi all, I have tried to search the archives, but nothing found as far as I can tell. Also googled, and again nowt.. Here goes the questions. Standard 10.2 installation, choose Gnome as the desktop (like all before hand) Login as one user, and lock the screen, when i hit mouse the unlock box comes up, but it crucially missing the "Switch User" functionality that was present in 10.1. First question, how can i get this essential functionality back second question, WTF was this removed ? Wife and myself use a single machine, each with own user accounts (she don't much like my XGL setup, nor the confusion of me running about 3-4 remote desktop connections, and 5-6 Vmware sessions) Please someone help me.. This is a total show stopper.. I know I could install the rpm of fast-user-switching (which ain't available in the standard YAST, again WTF not, ) but, i don't think i should have to really, not without knowing why the functionality was removed in the first place. Regards AM -- Angus MacGyver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Suse 10.2, Gnome, switch users
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 07:00 +, James Ogley wrote: > > gconftool-2 --set --type bool /apps/gnome-screensaver/user_switch_enabled > > true > > > second question, WTF was this removed ? > > a) its the upstream default Thanks, this has worked brilliantly. I can understand the all user lookup, as I have all users in LDAP setup, and yeah, it looks and gives them all. However, the LDAP directory at home is rather small (like 12 users or so) so not a problem here. > And the functionality has been moved to the logout dialog. Not here is isn't Tick box for ... Save session Radio buttion for "Action" options.. Log out Shut down Restart Suspend None of which is a switch user - is there something else I need to tweak to get it enabled ? > > Possibly we should re-enable the patch on openSUSE and leave it out on > > SLE. Don't know if it is a silly thought or not, but could the "switch user" dialogue be written so that there is an option either, to manually enter new username (lets face it, people wanting to logon know a username, and don't have to scroll to see it) OR choose from who is currently already logged on That in some ways would fulfil the requirements of the corporates with their huge AD's /NIS by not looking every user up BEFORE providing a list, and the people that do legitimately want to share a machine. > +1 > -- Thanks and Regards -- Angus MacGyver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse] Consistency with power privileges
Hi All, Running Suse 10.2 on a number of machines and have some issues with power management. When I first installed suse 10.2 on one machine, I couldn't get a normal user to be able to suspend or hibernate the machine, even though root could (so know the hardware was capable) I found a workaround, and wrote it in my little blue book of knowledge so I wouldn't forget, which was to fire up Yast2, goto /etc/sysconfig Editor, choose System>Powermanagement>Sleep Modes > Disable_User_Stanadby and change parameter from Yes to NO.. Great - worked a treat - till the hard drive failed and I had to do a re-install. The re-install now doesn't have this setting, so I can't get normal users to hibernate/suspend the machine which is somewhat irritating. I did some searching, and unfortunately now cannot remember where i found it, but found some stuff relating to /etc/PolicyKit/privilege.d/hal-power-* Now taken a look at those settings, tweaked and rebooted but still a normal user cannot hibernate the system... Please can someone point me in the right direction. Cheers AM -- Angus MacGyver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] Consistency with power privileges
/me shakes head in despair. Two questions get asked... ... and the response is a lecture-style, based on a (wrong) assumption that everyone is just migrating from Windows (only use that excuse for an OS when my work enforces it on me - my Linux use goes back to RH4.0 back in '96) and a sizable, if somewhat irrelevant discussion - for which I now must put my oar in, and no actual practical assistance on the problem in hand. This (from M Harris) philosophy does hold true of servers and mainframes, and I grant you to some degree, in your library "incident" as well. Really tightly configured secure systems are something that I do subscribe to at work (200+solaris jobbies) I don't want just any numptie shutting the machines down - and this I like to extend to my home servers,for example, most have a 64MiB install footprint complete with services running, there are no superfluous binaries or users on the system - period. HOWEVER There are a number of holes and caveats in the argument.. If someone has physical access, as per library example, who cares about the prevention of system shutdown ?? they've had physical access, it ain't your machine any longer.. however momentary the access. (more true of desktop machines, where typically you can't see the keyboard cable plugged into the back - perfect for a hardware keylogger for example ) If one were stupid enough to leave their laptop lying around, even if for a moment, anyone could do anything nasty with it - I sure as hell won't - it's MY laptop after all, I will pick it up and walk around with it - lid open if wirelessly connected and downloading was that essential - however, I would happily wait and re-download something if it meant I KNEW my laptop was safe and secure with me. There is only one time I leave my laptop un-attented, my work laptop mind, not personal one, and that is in the data-centre at work, you need a card to get in for a start.. If the laptops weren't unattended, I may see your point, but my personal laptop, my usage pattern, I'd wager my fingers would stop the lid closing to start with :-) -but ignoring that, on AC, shutting the lid blanks screen - nothing else, locked or unlocked - good thing; on battery, suspends it, again, precisely how I want/need it because that is how I configured it - - oh and it's easy to change this behaviour to something else.h... (note here personal usage pattern) ... and besides, the library incident is not the scenario I am talking about - it's more workstations. For my home network (laptop excluded), and I think to be fair, a normal company working environment, which is where Novell is aiming their linux product at, where all users should be centrally managed, the users logged onto the console really need to have the rights to shutdown,hibernate,suspend, (un)mount drives etc.. (Personally I'd actually put 9000 or so Sunray's on desks at work instead of PC's, and the 1000 or so people left that need to (un)mount hardware would actually have a valid reason to have dumb hardware - but that is another discussion) A lot of these sort of machines are not really multi-user systems in the true sense of the terminology, (Sunrays and their ilk excepted) - yes they are capable of being multi-user, the only user likely to do something on them at the same time that another is logged on, is the admin (home=me, company=IT). The best example of why users must be allowed to shut the things down - is when they go home, if only to save the company money; if the machines needed to be powered on for some update or something overnight, wake on lan is a perfect solution for such a scenario. Suspend is rather nice for quite a lot of this as well, how much more productive is it to this a software button, power-off, come in next morning, hit physical power button, and everything i was working on, all my firefox tabs, all my 1/2 written emails, saved, but still open documents re-open exactly where I left them? That is real usability +point I want/need... along with others I'd wager. So back to the original question(s)... 1) why the inconsistancy ? ok, granted progress, but it ain't progress when the sysadmins have to run around trying to figure out how to fix what is for all intents and purposes now "broken" due to change. It would make much better sense to leave this functionality to the next point release IMHO. (i.e. 10.3 in this case) 2) How could this be setup so that either some users, or all "valid" users can perform the action - - and really, this has to be easy, 'cause again, expand this to a corporate environment, there needs to a way for the support people to tweak the settings on a per machine instance. Regards AM -- I'm not perfect, but I am forgiven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] FIXED - Consistency with power privileges
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 21:33 -0600, M Harris wrote: > On Monday 26 February 2007 21:01, John Andersen wrote: > > > If yes to the above, what message comes back? > > > > More to the point, if you press and hold the power button > > what happens? Shutdown? Yup. > heh... no no no , actually... I was trying to do some diagnostics with > MacGyver... I want to find out (on his box) whether the machine as a suspend > button, whether it is grayed out, and if not what message he gets back when > an average user presses it... I would like to know what happens on his box > when someone other than root tries to suspend the system from the desktop. > I'm actually out of the debating mode now and am really trying to help him. > (I know, hard to believe) > > -- Sorry for not replying yesterday, had some other things that required looking at. (not PC related) Short answer, yes, there is a suspend option, and yes, it is active and not greyed out... Longer answer, it isn't Kde, it's Gnome, and "Log Out", "Shut Down" "Restart" and "Suspend" are the 4 options. When I choose the "Suspend" option, screen flickers, then the screen gets to the locked screen as if it had been locked manually or screensaver had started... When log back in, an error message pops up with a link (an old one at that) to the Gnome site... This link was kind of less than helpful, because it always assumed that the problem was down to hardware issues, which this wasn't as root could do it no problem. (if acpi/hardware, root'd not be able to do it, which is the case with the machine I am now writing this mail on - i've never got it to hibernate - so kinda resigned to that for this box) I did a bit more digging, and found that a local user (/etc/passwd) can suspend the machine properly, but an LDAP authenticated one couldn't. At this time, also found a minor error in my LDAP config which I fixed (clicked on wrong option on install, i'd set the Group Map ou to be the user ou, ps) Have to say here, this didn't change anything with the suspend/hibernate issue mind After what I'd read about /etc/Policykit/privilge.d/hal-power* files, i did a bit of logic playing, and changed the "RequiredPrivileges=" option to "RequiredPrivileges=desktop-console" Restarted rdbus and rcpolicykitd, now things are working. I did try, and then revert, the Allow=uid:root to Allow=uid:__all__, but the whole point here was letting the person on the console do this action - not all. Remote connections as agreed, definitely shouldn't be able to do it unless su'd to root, which is fair enough really... What I suppose grieves me now that I have it working, is that it really shouldn't be this hard. Yast has no wrapper for this, which I kinda think it should, certainly under the Power Management settings.. Yeah yeah, editing text files ain't hard for me or some others (i spend 90+% of working life at CLI, it's my job), but this is the kind of thing that needs to have some thought, so that people that are new to *nix don't have to go rumaging around for. To be fair, Suse is far better with it's "gui" management tools than Fedora, by almost a complete universe. After all, the PC is a tool, bit like a air compressor... you can change the bits on the end of the pipe (your programs) and you can be skilled in getting "product" out, but you shouldn't have to open the case and fiddle with the electronics inside just so pressing the power switch turns it off. Cheers AM > > Kind regards, > > M Harris <>< -- Angus MacGyver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] FIXED - Consistency with power privileges
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 07:29 +0800, Joe Morris (NTM) wrote: > Angus MacGyver wrote: > > After what I'd read about /etc/Policykit/privilge.d/hal-power* files, i > > did a bit of logic playing, and changed the "RequiredPrivileges=" option > > to "RequiredPrivileges=desktop-console" > > > > Restarted rdbus and rcpolicykitd, now things are working. > > > Sounds like you have found, and troubleshot, a bug. A bug report would > be helpful IMHO. Sounds reasonable. I will do so - and document all stages of the issue. That I will have to do tomorrow now :-) > > What I suppose grieves me now that I have it working, is that it really > > shouldn't be this hard. > > Yast has no wrapper for this, which I kinda think it should, certainly > > under the Power Management settings.. > > > And so for it to be easier next time, and for everyone's benefit, please > file a bug report so this can change in future versions, and maybe even > a feature request or whatever it would be called for Power Management to > have this incorporated. You can help to improve openSUSE to be even better. > Again, sounds reasonable - Feature request added in "Feature Wishlist" Cheers AM -- I'm not perfect, but I am forgiven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
