On 11-02-18 22:24, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 21:02 +0100, Alexander Wuerstlein wrote:
> > On 11-02-18 20:34, Gerry Reno wrote:
> > > On 02/18/2011 02:14 PM, Alexander Wuerstlein wrote:
> > > > On 11-02-18 19:59, Gerry Reno wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On 02/18/2011 01:18
Thanks for taking the time to clarify the issues. It is helping me
achieve more balance in deciding if this is a good or bad move. I'll
respond in the text below - John
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 21:02 +0100, Alexander Wuerstlein wrote:
> On 11-02-18 20:34, Gerry Reno wrote:
> > On 02/18/2011 02:14
On 02/18/2011 03:02 PM, Alexander Wuerstlein wrote:
> On 11-02-18 20:34, Gerry Reno wrote:
>
>> On 02/18/2011 02:14 PM, Alexander Wuerstlein wrote:
>>
>>> On 11-02-18 19:59, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>>
>>>
On 02/18/2011 01:18 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>
On 11-02-18 20:55, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 20:14 +0100, Alexander Wuerstlein wrote:
> We use a local x2gousers group on the VM. We create it
> and add the user to it (in fact, the VM hostname is the same as the
> globally unique user uid) as part of the VM creation.
S
On 11-02-18 20:34, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 02/18/2011 02:14 PM, Alexander Wuerstlein wrote:
> > On 11-02-18 19:59, Gerry Reno wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/18/2011 01:18 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 18:52:28 (CET), John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> >> Are you implying
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 20:14 +0100, Alexander Wuerstlein wrote:
> >
> > Are you implying that every user on any x2go server would be able to
> > launch a remote x2go desktop by default?
>
> Yes.
>
> > We don't have any problems with the current mechanism of 'x2gousers'
> > providing the control.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 20:34:06 (CET), Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 02/18/2011 02:14 PM, Alexander Wuerstlein wrote:
>> On 11-02-18 19:59, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/18/2011 01:18 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 18:52:28 (CET), John A. Sullivan III wrote:
On 02/18/2011 02:14 PM, Alexander Wuerstlein wrote:
> On 11-02-18 19:59, Gerry Reno wrote:
>
>> On 02/18/2011 01:18 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 18:52:28 (CET), John A. Sullivan III wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 17:18 +0100, Reinhard
On 11-02-18 19:59, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 02/18/2011 01:18 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 18:52:28 (CET), John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 17:18 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >>
> >>> The question is if there was a legitimate use-ca
On 02/18/2011 01:18 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 18:52:28 (CET), John A. Sullivan III wrote:
>
>
>> On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 17:18 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>
>>> The question is if there was a legitimate use-case for having users
>>> that can login via ssh, but
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 19:18 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 18:52:28 (CET), John A. Sullivan III wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 17:18 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >> The question is if there was a legitimate use-case for having users
> >> that can login via ssh, bu
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 18:52:28 (CET), John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 17:18 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> The question is if there was a legitimate use-case for having users
>> that can login via ssh, but are not in the x2gousers group, i.e., cannot
>> login via x2go.
>
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 17:18 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> The question is if there was a legitimate use-case for having users
> that can login via ssh, but are not in the x2gousers group, i.e., cannot
> login via x2go.
It's a bit of a stretch but I could see it in hosted environments like
ours.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:55:56 (CET), John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 12:32 +0100, Moritz Struebe wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> we already talked to Alex, but maybe it's a good idea to ask a broader
>> audience: Has anybody got an use case where someone who has ssh access
>> is
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 12:32 +0100, Moritz Struebe wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> we already talked to Alex, but maybe it's a good idea to ask a broader
> audience: Has anybody got an use case where someone who has ssh access
> is not allowed to start x2go? In short: We want to get rid of the
> sudo-entry
- Original Message -
> Am 16.02.2011 17:33, schrieb --[ UxBoD ]--:
>
> > Alex, I found another issue with re-sizing in multiwindow and the
> > developer of VcxSrv has resolved it. I believe we are pretty much
> > there now as I have tried every screen size combination I could
> > think off
Hi there,
we already talked to Alex, but maybe it's a good idea to ask a broader
audience: Has anybody got an use case where someone who has ssh access
is not allowed to start x2go? In short: We want to get rid of the
sudo-entry and use suidperl instead.
Cheers
Morty
--
Dipl.-Ing. Moritz 'Morty
17 matches
Mail list logo
