Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:11:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:11:35 -0400 Received: from cr626425-a.bloor1.on.wave.home.com ([24.156.35.8]:30725 "EHLO spqr.damncats.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:11:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:11:25 -0400 (EDT) From: John Cavan To: imel96@trustix.co.id cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Single user linux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 imel96@trustix.co.id wrote: > you're right, we could do it in more than one way. like copying > with mcopy without mounting a fat disk. the question is where to put it. > why we do it is an important thing. > taking place as a clueless user, i think i should be able to do anything. > i'd be happy to accept proof that multi-user is a solution for > clueless user, not because it's proven on servers. but because it is > a solution by definition. > I think you have it backwards here, given that Linux works one way and you want it to work another. Basically, I would suggest that it is up to you to prove that multi-user is NOT a solution for "clueless" user, especially given that there have been a number of suggestions on how to do it without changing the kernel or even changing software. If you can't prove the case, I rather suspect that your patch won't make it. Don't feel bad though, I've yet to get one through either. :o) John - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/