4:43 a.m.
I am primarily a Windows user (was happy with XP and Wn7 - but am not with
Win8!). In addition to that I have been using SuSE/OpenSuSE since version
10.0. I need to test some software running in Wine as part of my job.
I find some shortcomings in Fedora 21 Desktop that makes it not fully
qualifying as a full Desktop version. There are not enough GUI options for
system's management for a GUI oriented userr - like Windows 'Control Panel'
and SuSE's "YaST" GUI.
I realize that this is probably too late for the 21 GA realese - but here
are my points:
1) I think *deifnitely* that the "Yum Extender" software management GUI
should be included in the Desktop version as default. I was not aware of
this interface untill someone in Virtualbox Forums pointed my attention to
it.
2) The (human) user created during installation should be added to sudo'ers
list automatically. I cannot think of any other Desktop oriented distro
that does not. If you are not a *Fedora hawk* , hs no experience with
Linux, this is actually somewhat non-trivial.
..
3) And please consider GUI options for user management, service/daemon
management etc. as priorities for future developments in order to develop
Fedora into a fully Desktop oriented distro (use YaST as inspiration, for
instance).
Please consider this a positive feedback.
--
Hilsen / Regards
Peter Laursen
6:11 a.m.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Peter Laursen <jazcyk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
1) I think *deifnitely* that the "Yum Extender" software
management GUI
should be included in the Desktop version as default. I was not aware of
this interface untill someone in Virtualbox Forums pointed my attention to
it.
We have gnome-software, which is better for end users in my opinion. It
shows actual apps instead of thousands of library packages that confuse new
users. I don't think we want to change this.
2) The (human) user created during installation should be added to
sudo'ers list automatically. I cannot think of any other Desktop oriented
distro that does not. If you are not a *Fedora hawk* , hs no experience
with Linux, this is actually somewhat non-trivial.
AFAIK users creating during the initial setup process (after you finish
with Anaconda) automatically get added to the wheel group which means they
get sudo access. I don't know about the user creation in Anaconda - but I
think that the user creation in Anaconda is not a thing we want in
Workstation at all.
..
3) And please consider GUI options for user management, service/daemon
management etc. as priorities for future developments in order to develop
Fedora into a fully Desktop oriented distro (use YaST as inspiration, for
instance).
We have a GUI for "user management" in settings. As for service
management,
I don't see how this has to do anything with being a "desktop" product or
how it helps our target audience. Can you expand on why you want such GUI?
--
-Elad Alfassa.
6:24 a.m.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Elad Alfassa <elad(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Peter Laursen
<jazcyk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> 1) I think *deifnitely* that the "Yum Extender" software management GUI
> should be included in the Desktop version as default. I was not aware of
> this interface untill someone in Virtualbox Forums pointed my attention to
> it.
We have gnome-software, which is better for end users in my opinion. It
shows actual apps instead of thousands of library packages that confuse new
users. I don't think we want to change this.
>
>
>
> 2) The (human) user created during installation should be added to
> sudo'ers list automatically. I cannot think of any other Desktop oriented
> distro that does not. If you are not a *Fedora hawk* , hs no experience
> with Linux, this is actually somewhat non-trivial.
AFAIK users creating during the initial setup process (after you finish with
Anaconda) automatically get added to the wheel group which means they get
sudo access. I don't know about the user creation in Anaconda - but I think
that the user creation in Anaconda is not a thing we want in Workstation at
all.
There's an option in initial-setup "make user an Administrator" that
basically does this, not sure if the gnome equiv does the same.
Peter
6:27 a.m.
"There's an option in initial-setup "make user an Administrator" that
basically does this, not sure if the gnome equiv does the same."
I noticed that option, but did not understand the meaning of it. "Make user
a sudo'er" would be better think. Anyway it explains.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Elad Alfassa
<elad(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Peter Laursen <jazcyk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> 1) I think *deifnitely* that the "Yum Extender" software management
GUI
>> should be included in the Desktop version as default. I was not aware
of
>> this interface untill someone in Virtualbox Forums pointed my attention
to
>> it.
>
>
> We have gnome-software, which is better for end users in my opinion. It
> shows actual apps instead of thousands of library packages that confuse
new
> users. I don't think we want to change this.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) The (human) user created during installation should be added to
>> sudo'ers list automatically. I cannot think of any other Desktop
oriented
>> distro that does not. If you are not a *Fedora hawk* , hs no experience
>> with Linux, this is actually somewhat non-trivial.
>
>
> AFAIK users creating during the initial setup process (after you finish
with
> Anaconda) automatically get added to the wheel group which means they get
> sudo access. I don't know about the user creation in Anaconda - but I
think
> that the user creation in Anaconda is not a thing we want in Workstation
at
> all.
There's an option in initial-setup "make user an Administrator" that
basically does this, not sure if the gnome equiv does the same.
Peter
--
desktop mailing list
desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
--
Hilsen / Regards
Peter Laursen
7:43 a.m.
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 01:27:42PM +0100, Peter Laursen wrote:
"There's an option in initial-setup "make user an
Administrator" that
basically does this, not sure if the gnome equiv does the same."
I noticed that option, but did not understand the meaning of it. "Make user
a sudo'er" would be better think. Anyway it explains.
There's a tradeoff, there, of course. Saying "a sudo'er" is more
clear if you know exactly what sudo is, and much more confusing if you
don't.
I guess we could include the classic Xkcd on the screen. :)
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
9:07 p.m.
2014-12-08 8:32 GMT-06:00 Elad Alfassa <elad(a)fedoraproject.org>:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
>
>
>
> I guess we could include the classic Xkcd on the screen. :)
Nah, the licensing doesn't permit commercial use :)
is Fedora a commercial product(?)(!) But it posses a
(very old version) Creative Commons license. :)
-Isaac C.
8:55 a.m.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Isaac Cortés González <
w.isaac.cortes(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2014-12-08 8:32 GMT-06:00 Elad Alfassa
<elad(a)fedoraproject.org>:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org
>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess we could include the classic Xkcd on the screen. :)
>
>
>
> Nah, the licensing doesn't permit commercial use :)
is Fedora a commercial product(?)(!) But it posses a
(very old version) Creative Commons license. :)
-Isaac C.
--
desktop mailing list
desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
It uses CC-BY-NC, the NC stands for no commercial use.
Which is listed here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Bad_Licenses_3
Also note this whole idea is a joke (and as such it's kind of a waste of
time to discuss it), including a comic strip in the UI is a very bad idea.
--
-Elad Alfassa.
9:58 p.m.
On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 08:43 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 01:27:42PM +0100, Peter Laursen wrote:
> "There's an option in initial-setup "make user an Administrator"
that
> basically does this, not sure if the gnome equiv does the same."
>
> I noticed that option, but did not understand the meaning of it. "Make user
> a sudo'er" would be better think. Anyway it explains.
There's a tradeoff, there, of course. Saying "a sudo'er" is more
clear if you know exactly what sudo is, and much more confusing if you
don't.
I guess we could include the classic Xkcd on the screen. :)
It's also not really accurate. It also grants different PolicyKit
privileges, it is not only to do with sudo.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
10 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 07:58:40PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I guess we could include the classic Xkcd on the screen. :)
It's also not really accurate. It also grants different PolicyKit
privileges, it is not only to do with sudo.
_And_ consolekit. At least if that stuff is still in there. :)
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
5:21 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 07:58:40PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I guess we could include the classic Xkcd on the screen. :)
> It's also not really accurate. It also grants different PolicyKit
> privileges, it is not only to do with sudo.
_And_ consolekit. At least if that stuff is still in there. :)
consolekit? really? Welcome to 2014 -> logind ;)
8:51 a.m.
On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 12:21 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 07:58:40PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > I guess we could include the classic Xkcd on the screen. :)
>> It's also not really accurate. It also grants different PolicyKit
>> privileges, it is not only to do with sudo.
>
> _And_ consolekit. At least if that stuff is still in there. :)
consolekit? really? Welcome to 2014 -> logind ;)
Neither have anything to do with it. gnome-initial-setup calls into the
accountsservice to set the account type of the created local account to
'Administrator', which adds the user to the wheel group.
8:52 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:51:03AM -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> >> It's also not really accurate. It also grants
different PolicyKit
> >> privileges, it is not only to do with sudo.
> > _And_ consolekit. At least if that stuff is still in there. :)
> consolekit? really? Welcome to 2014 -> logind ;)
Neither have anything to do with it. gnome-initial-setup calls into the
accountsservice to set the account type of the created local account to
'Administrator', which adds the user to the wheel group.
.... and, being in the wheel group grants more than just sudo access --
it grants different PolicyKit privileges and enables auth-as-self in
consolekit.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
6:48 a.m.
1)
"There's an option in initial-setup "make user an Administrator" that
basically does this, not sure if the gnome equiv does the same."
OK, that was what that option was for. I saw it, but did not understand the
meaning of if. The (Windows) term "administator" is confusing a Linux
context IMO. I think "sudoer" would be better (or "sudoer
(administrator)"
if you like)
2)
We have gnome-software, which is better for end users in my opinion.
It
shows actual apps instead of thousands of library packages that confuse
new
users. I don't think we want to change this.
Still you may want to install software comng from another desktop
environment (examle: amarok) or something that is not specific for gnome or
any specific desktop environment at all (like Wine).
I cannot see what should be confusing . You will use the search field
(enter "amarok" or "wine" for instance).
3) I use the traditonal/old/classic Gnome interface and don't find
"settngs" available anywhere in the menu there and for that reason never
found this interface at all before. It should probably be added to "system
tools" menu (or what it is named in English. I am a Danish user)?
-- Peter
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Elad Alfassa <elad(a)fedoraproject.org>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Peter Laursen <jazcyk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> 1) I think *deifnitely* that the "Yum Extender" software
management GUI
> >> should be included in the Desktop version as default. I was not aware
> of
> >> this interface untill someone in Virtualbox Forums pointed my attention
> to
> >> it.
> >
> >
> > We have gnome-software, which is better for end users in my opinion. It
> > shows actual apps instead of thousands of library packages that confuse
> new
> users. I don't think we want to change this.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2) The (human) user created during installation should be added to
> >> sudo'ers list automatically. I cannot think of any other Desktop
> oriented
> >> distro that does not. If you are not a *Fedora hawk* , hs no experience
> >> with Linux, this is actually somewhat non-trivial.
> >
> >
> > AFAIK users creating during the initial setup process (after you finish
> with
> > Anaconda) automatically get added to the wheel group which means they get
> > sudo access. I don't know about the user creation in Anaconda - but I
> think
> > that the user creation in Anaconda is not a thing we want in Workstation
> at
> > all.
>
> There's an option in initial-setup "make user an Administrator" that
> basically does this, not sure if the gnome equiv does the same.
>
> Peter
> --
> desktop mailing list
> desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
--
Hilsen / Regards
Peter Laursen
7:07 a.m.
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 13:48:07 +0100, Peter Laursen wrote:
2)
> We have gnome-software, which is better for end users in my opinion. It
> shows actual apps instead of thousands of library packages that confuse
new
> users. I don't think we want to change this.
Still you may want to install software comng from another desktop
environment (examle: amarok) or something that is not specific for gnome or
any specific desktop environment at all (like Wine).
I cannot see what should be confusing . You will use the search field
(enter "amarok" or "wine" for instance).
Despite its name, gnome-software is _not_ specific to GNOME and _not_
specific to GNOME related applications either. It lists many other
programs (based on special metadata files).
9:56 p.m.
On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 14:11 +0200, Elad Alfassa wrote:
> 2) The (human) user created during installation should be added
to
> sudo'ers list automatically. I cannot think of any other Desktop oriented
> distro that does not. If you are not a *Fedora hawk* , hs no experience
> with Linux, this is actually somewhat non-trivial.
>
AFAIK users creating during the initial setup process (after you finish
with Anaconda) automatically get added to the wheel group which means they
get sudo access. I don't know about the user creation in Anaconda - but I
think that the user creation in Anaconda is not a thing we want in
Workstation at all.
The anaconda dialog has a checkbox for whether the user should be a
admin, it defaults to unchecked.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
2:45 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org> wrote:
On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 19:56 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> it defaults to unchecked.
Frankly, this is a bad default....
I disagree, the standard for security is to give the least possible
permissions by default and add as necessary. For the vast majority of
day to day tasks don't need admin access these days due to polkit
policy for local users so for an average user there is no need.
Peter
4:51 a.m.
A number of OSes default to having the first created user be the
"Administrator", including OSX, Windows and, closer to our usage, Ubuntu.
I don't think that defaulting to the first user being an admin is a problem for people
installing multiple machines, as this would be something they would look for. I'd much
rather force having an admin on the system and get rid of the root user as something you
can log in as.
----- Original Message -----
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Michael Catanzaro
<mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 19:56 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> it defaults to unchecked.
>
> Frankly, this is a bad default....
I disagree, the standard for security is to give the least possible
permissions by default and add as necessary. For the vast majority of
day to day tasks don't need admin access these days due to polkit
policy for local users so for an average user there is no need.
Peter
--
desktop mailing list
desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
4:56 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> wrote:
A number of OSes default to having the first created user be the
"Administrator", including OSX, Windows and, closer to our usage, Ubuntu.
I have no idea about OSX/Ubuntu but my understanding of Windows was
that that was no longer the case, but again it's 2 years since I've
looked at that closely.
I don't think that defaulting to the first user being an admin is
a problem for people installing multiple machines, as this would be something they would
look for. I'd much rather force having an admin on the system and get rid of the root
user as something you can log in as.
----- Original Message -----
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 19:56 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> it defaults to unchecked.
> >
> > Frankly, this is a bad default....
>
> I disagree, the standard for security is to give the least possible
> permissions by default and add as necessary. For the vast majority of
> day to day tasks don't need admin access these days due to polkit
> policy for local users so for an average user there is no need.
>
> Peter
> --
> desktop mailing list
> desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
--
desktop mailing list
desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
5:15 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Bastien Nocera
<bnocera(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> A number of OSes default to having the first created user be the
"Administrator", including OSX, Windows and, closer to our usage, Ubuntu.
FWIW, I agree with this. Fedora's current defaults here are
"non-standard" and I'd risk saying even anachronistic.
I have no idea about OSX/Ubuntu but my understanding of Windows was
that that was no longer the case, but again it's 2 years since I've
looked at that closely.
It is still the case. The user created during initial setup on the
Windows 10 preview is an Administrator.
Rui
5:17 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Bastien Nocera
<bnocera(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> A number of OSes default to having the first created user be the
> "Administrator", including OSX, Windows and, closer to our usage, Ubuntu.
I have no idea about OSX/Ubuntu but my understanding of Windows was
that that was no longer the case, but again it's 2 years since I've
looked at that closely.
It was the case for the OEM installs I encountered...
> I don't think that defaulting to the first user being an
admin is a problem
> for people installing multiple machines, as this would be something they
> would look for. I'd much rather force having an admin on the system and
> get rid of the root user as something you can log in as.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org>
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 19:56 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> >> it defaults to unchecked.
>> >
>> > Frankly, this is a bad default....
>>
>> I disagree, the standard for security is to give the least possible
>> permissions by default and add as necessary. For the vast majority of
>> day to day tasks don't need admin access these days due to polkit
>> policy for local users so for an average user there is no need.
>>
>> Peter
>> --
>> desktop mailing list
>> desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
> --
> desktop mailing list
> desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
--
desktop mailing list
desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
7:15 a.m.
On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 05:51 -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
A number of OSes default to having the first created user be the
"Administrator", including OSX, Windows and, closer to our usage,
Ubuntu.
I don't think that defaulting to the first user being an admin is a
problem for people installing multiple machines, as this would be
something they would look for. I'd much rather force having an admin on
the system and get rid of the root user as something you can log in as.
Well, that works if-and-only-if you are dealing with a predominately
single-user machine. In the case where you are managing users in a
FreeIPA or Active Directory domain, in many cases you won't really have
a "first user" on the system.
Now, an argument can be made for requiring that the domain policy is set
up to have appropriate admin privileges for certain users in the domain,
but that doesn't help if there's a bug in network connectivity or SSSD
that prevents that admin from being able to log in to fix things.
So I think a strong need remains for having a real root account on
systems that are domain-enabled.
7:38 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 05:51 -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> A number of OSes default to having the first created user be the
> "Administrator", including OSX, Windows and, closer to our usage,
> Ubuntu.
>
> I don't think that defaulting to the first user being an admin is a
> problem for people installing multiple machines, as this would be
> something they would look for. I'd much rather force having an admin on
> the system and get rid of the root user as something you can log in as.
Well, that works if-and-only-if you are dealing with a predominately
single-user machine. In the case where you are managing users in a
FreeIPA or Active Directory domain, in many cases you won't really have
a "first user" on the system.
Even network-enabled logins have local admin users, such as the well-known
"toor".
Having a local admin that's not root would certainly be beneficial.
Now, an argument can be made for requiring that the domain policy is
set
up to have appropriate admin privileges for certain users in the domain,
but that doesn't help if there's a bug in network connectivity or SSSD
that prevents that admin from being able to log in to fix things.
So I think a strong need remains for having a real root account on
systems that are domain-enabled.
So you don't want a real root account, you want a local admin with rights
similar to root.
8:26 a.m.
On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 08:38 -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
----- Original Message -----
>
> On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 05:51 -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > A number of OSes default to having the first created user be the
> > "Administrator", including OSX, Windows and, closer to our usage,
> > Ubuntu.
> >
> > I don't think that defaulting to the first user being an admin is a
> > problem for people installing multiple machines, as this would be
> > something they would look for. I'd much rather force having an admin on
> > the system and get rid of the root user as something you can log in as.
>
> Well, that works if-and-only-if you are dealing with a predominately
> single-user machine. In the case where you are managing users in a
> FreeIPA or Active Directory domain, in many cases you won't really have
> a "first user" on the system.
Even network-enabled logins have local admin users, such as the well-known
"toor".
Having a local admin that's not root would certainly be beneficial.
> Now, an argument can be made for requiring that the domain policy is set
> up to have appropriate admin privileges for certain users in the domain,
> but that doesn't help if there's a bug in network connectivity or SSSD
> that prevents that admin from being able to log in to fix things.
>
> So I think a strong need remains for having a real root account on
> systems that are domain-enabled.
So you don't want a real root account, you want a local admin with rights
similar to root.
Well, not *necessarily*. First, a local admin account that isn't UID 0
could end up conflicting with a domain account, which is never good.
UID/GID 0 is the only specially-exempted pair from SSSD (so it will
never under any circumstances interfere with it). If we wanted to create
a account with rights similar to root, we might need to consider
reserving another special ID for that user.
But I suppose we're well into "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a
duck and looks like a duck, it's probably functionally equivalent to the
root user" here. Current technical considerations lead to a preference
towards using UID/GID 0 for this purpose (changing the name of root
would be entertaining...), but hey, "it's all code". Nothing is
permanently carved into a marble tablet.
8:32 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Gallagher" <sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
To: desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 8:15:07 AM
Subject: Re: Thoughts about Fedora 21 Desktop
On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 05:51 -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> A number of OSes default to having the first created user be the
> "Administrator", including OSX, Windows and, closer to our usage,
> Ubuntu.
>
> I don't think that defaulting to the first user being an admin is a
> problem for people installing multiple machines, as this would be
> something they would look for. I'd much rather force having an admin on
> the system and get rid of the root user as something you can log in as.
Well, that works if-and-only-if you are dealing with a predominately
single-user machine. In the case where you are managing users in a
FreeIPA or Active Directory domain, in many cases you won't really have
a "first user" on the system.
I don't think it is a risky proposition to assume that for the vast majority
when people install the Fedora Workstation using the GUI installer they
are installing a single-user machine for personal use.
I know there are other users too of course, but for instance I doubt that
someone doing a corporate Fedora install on a large number of machines
install them one by one using the GUI installer. So I think we shouldn't
optimize the options in the GUI installer for such scenarios.
Christian
Now, an argument can be made for requiring that the domain policy is
set
up to have appropriate admin privileges for certain users in the domain,
but that doesn't help if there's a bug in network connectivity or SSSD
that prevents that admin from being able to log in to fix things.
So I think a strong need remains for having a real root account on
systems that are domain-enabled.
--
desktop mailing list
desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
11:41 a.m.
On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 08:15 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
So I think a strong need remains for having a real root account on
systems that are domain-enabled.
this was thread creep. There was no suggestion that creation of an admin
user be *required* - the suggestion was just that *if you do create a
user account during install*, it should be an admin by default.
basically, change the default state of the checkbox on the user creation
spoke.
personally I can't really see it as terribly important either way, if
people aren't going to read the darn screen I don't know what to do for
them, and anaconda does require that you at least *either* set a root
password *or* create an admin account, you can't lock yourself out of
admin privileges. But I wanted to point out that this was a
misunderstanding and sent the thread spinning OT.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
1:44 p.m.
"the suggestion was just that *if you do create a
user account during install*, it should be an admin by default.
basically, change the default state of the checkbox on the user creation
spoke."
..was exactly what meant (don't forget that I started this discussion! :-)
)
But if there is room in the installer interface I'd suggest too that
"Administrator" could change to something like (compromise!)
"Administrator
(sudo'er and member of the 'wheel' admin user group)" or similar.
-- Peter
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 08:15 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> So I think a strong need remains for having a real root account on
> systems that are domain-enabled.
this was thread creep. There was no suggestion that creation of an admin
user be *required* - the suggestion was just that *if you do create a
user account during install*, it should be an admin by default.
basically, change the default state of the checkbox on the user creation
spoke.
personally I can't really see it as terribly important either way, if
people aren't going to read the darn screen I don't know what to do for
them, and anaconda does require that you at least *either* set a root
password *or* create an admin account, you can't lock yourself out of
admin privileges. But I wanted to point out that this was a
misunderstanding and sent the thread spinning OT.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
desktop mailing list
desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
--
Hilsen / Regards
Peter Laursen
2:25 p.m.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Peter Laursen <jazcyk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
"the suggestion was just that *if you do create a
user account during install*, it should be an admin by default.
basically, change the default state of the checkbox on the user creation
spoke."
..was exactly what meant (don't forget that I started this discussion! :-)
)
But if there is room in the installer interface I'd suggest too that
"Administrator" could change to something like (compromise!)
"Administrator
(sudo'er and member of the 'wheel' admin user group)" or similar.
Ugh no.
3:49 p.m.
On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 20:44 +0100, Peter Laursen wrote:
"the suggestion was just that *if you do create a
user account during install*, it should be an admin by default.
basically, change the default state of the checkbox on the user
creation
spoke."
..was exactly what meant (don't forget that I started this
discussion! :-) )
But if there is room in the installer interface I'd suggest too that
"Administrator" could change to something like (compromise!
) "Administrator (sudo'er and member of the 'wheel' admin user
group)"
or similar.
I'd rather see the "Help" button link to a page that gives a more
complete definition of what an "Administrator" can do. Cluttering the
user creation screen with this is pretty ugly.
3:54 p.m.
On Dec 9, 2014 2:49 PM, "Stephen Gallagher" <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 20:44 +0100, Peter Laursen wrote:
> "the suggestion was just that *if you do create a
> user account during install*, it should be an admin by default.
> basically, change the default state of the checkbox on the user
> creation
> spoke."
> ..was exactly what meant (don't forget that I started this
> discussion! :-) )
>
>
> But if there is room in the installer interface I'd suggest too that
> "Administrator" could change to something like (compromise!
> ) "Administrator (sudo'er and member of the 'wheel' admin user
group)"
> or similar.
I'd rather see the "Help" button link to a page that gives a more
complete definition of what an "Administrator" can do. Cluttering the
user creation screen with this is pretty ugly.
--
This is feasible. I'd love the chance to browbeat^wadvise people about
appropriate use of admin powers, too. Feel free to file a bug on anaconda
for their input and add me or pbokoc as the docs contact, we can make it
happen if they are on board.
--Pete
--Pete
3418
days inactive
3420
days old
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
30 comments
15 participants
participants (15)
-
Adam Williamson -
Bastien Nocera -
Christian Schaller -
drago01 -
Elad Alfassa -
Lain Cortés González -
Matthew Miller -
Matthias Clasen -
Michael Catanzaro -
Michael Schwendt -
Pete Travis -
Peter Laursen -
Peter Robinson -
Rui Tiago Cação Matos -
Stephen Gallagher