Re: Blocking Access (UPDATE)

[Telsa Gwynne <hobbit aloss ukuu org uk>]

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 02:50:18PM -0600 or thereabouts, SoloCDM wrote:
> Miguel de Icaza stated the following:
> > 
> > On 30 Mar 2001 09:08:32 -0700, SoloCDM wrote:
> > > When a user is in their account using X, is there a way to keep
> > > them from accessing Settings, System, ...?
> > 
> > Well, you could remove the programs that implement those (like removing
> > the control panel package).
> 
> This brings up an interesting point.  If the user is later given an
> administration position, then all those things (like: control panel,
> ...) will need to be reinstalled.
> 
> Why not have some configuration file in an administration directory
> simply shut those things off (keep them from loading)?!?!  If I go
> around removing some of these items, some all-in-one package might
> start having a fit if it can't find its dependents.  It doesn't seem
> too much of an out-of-bounds request, because root already has things
> that load into X (in: Red Hat menus) when only root is recognized for
> administration purposes.  If this idea is valid, then why not have all
> workstations controlled by a server.  It would reduce workload and
> increase administration scope from one location.

It's not an out of bounds request, but something similar has been 
implemented for ages: $(sysconfdir)/gnome/config-override and 
$(sysconfdir)/gnome/config are directories for system-wide defaults.

http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/libgnome/gnome-gnome-config.html
Look for "How Config Items are Read." which lists where to put
defaults you don't want users overriding.

Paul Cooper wrote http://www.darboux.uklinux.net/gnome/ for one
way to configure things for a bunch of users. You could try that too. 

I don't know whether all of this holds true now gconf is arriving on
the scene. If someone could summarise whether gconf will affect this
at all and how it will, that would be cool.

Telsa