| Summary: | Slave-Users | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Applications] systemsettings | Reporter: | Stephen <stephen.feyrer> |
| Component: | kcm_users | Assignee: | Plasma Bugs List <plasma-bugs-null> |
| Status: | RESOLVED NOT A BUG | ||
| Severity: | wishlist | CC: | kde |
| Priority: | NOR | ||
| Version First Reported In: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Platform: | Other | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Latest Commit: | Version Fixed/Implemented In: | ||
| Sentry Crash Report: | |||
|
Description
Stephen
2020-03-13 21:32:18 UTC
One detail that I forgot to mention is that these accounts would be accessed through the master accounts credentials possibly through sudo. In the management and creation of the slave accounts, need mechanisms to: Lock and Unlock the account Set/Reset a password to control access Manage group membership Does the kernel support such sub-users? @Christoph Feck The way that I envision this, the short answer is yes. This is at least in the way that the kernel supports any users. From the operating system perspective these are just regular users. The difference lies in the way that they are created and used. These users would be created via a special KDE slave user management widget. When you create a regular user, you have many options to specify group membership, home directory and other things too. The important parts for us are how you authenticate as that user and where their home directory lives. For the authentication, you could use sudo or su though I suspect PAM is more suited to this sort of authentication. For the home directory useradd offers the -m option which will create the home directory from the skeleton directory. This proposal does not change the underlying operating system, it changes the way the desktop environment interacts with the user by offering the user multiple personalities. To be clear this is a KDE feature, not an operating system feature. P.s. I did try to be consistent in my terms. Here 'sub-user' and 'slave user' are synonymous. I decided in the end to go with the term 'slave user' as that is more explicit about how this should work. It sounds like you're describing Unix groups with extra steps. We're not doing this. @David Edmundson Groups with extra steps, yes and no. In a more abstract sense think of this as breaking down a users activities into silos. As I said, in the first instance think of this like docker but for users. Perhaps something similar can already be achieved through Unix groups. I will read more deeply. As for you're not doing this, fair comment that's up to you. |