On Wednesday 13 February 2008 17:57, JP Rosevear wrote:
That guys doesn't do a difference between user preferences and system management tasks.
That distinction is often not very clear either
Regrettably, yes. It can be hard to understand for users why setting the system time is a privileged operation -- until they get it explained. Yet, that doesn't change the fact that there is such a distinction between per-user settings and system settings. And this is what those two different kinds of control centers reflect.
and often is a reflection of the underlying technology - printers being a good example - rather than how the users uses them.
Well, where do we draw the line? The user of a standalone home PC with one printer can rightfully claim that this is HIS printer and that he can do whatever he pleases with it, so it doesn't make sense for him to acquire root privileges to administrate that printer. That printer might also be a network printer because it's so much more comfortable to work with the laptop from the living room couch and work over Wi-Fi. It's still his, and he's still the boss. See where this is heading? Printer...network... all of a sudden, you find yourself in a corporate environment where things get administered in a lot less anarchic ways. There must be rules and order. System settings vs. user settings are coming back with a vengeance. You see, in a simple example everything is - well - simple. Who would have guessed. But that's not the real world.
Also a role based yast
Apart from that increasingly becoming a buzzword (with an extra score of bingo points), exactly how would it help? Do we abandon all privileges and permissions, becoming much more Windows-like in the process? (And inviting all kinds of intruders, of course?) Or do we still at least tell the user that whatever he is about to do is a privileged operation and ask at least his confirmation (not necessarily his password or a special "I, the XY subsystem admin" password)? I'd be mighty pissed if some too-clever software would simply install some piece of software without asking me while I am surfing the web, just because I happen to also be a "can install software" sub-admin. Adios, security. So yes, very, very likely (hopefully nobody here argues this) we still have to at least ask for confirmation. But that again means showing that evil system vs. user distinction. I vote for being honest. There are things that are system related, and we should not try to disguise that fact. It's OK to make things easier, but please let's not try to be too clever. The user (in his capacity as administrator) has the last word. Yes, for some users this will be a learning curve. On the downside, they will have to learn new concepts. On the plus side, they will be more knowledgeable afterwards.
that allowed users to "sync" their user preferences to the system (for instance timezone) would eliminate some problems
Timezone: Europe/London [x] Make this timezone the system default
IIRC we only have that distinction between system clock on UTC vs. system
clock on local time so that a parallel-bootable Windows doesn't get confused.
If you don't have Windows on that machine, leave the system default (UTC),
preferably also set up NTP, and you can set your desktop to whatever time
zone you like.
That "system default" time zone you described above would be another
workaround around somebody else's (Windows) problem.
CU
--
Stefan Hundhammer