Re: [sabayon] On the topic of lockdown

[Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com>]

On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 14:42 +0100, Rob Bradford wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 13:29 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 09:32 +0100, Rob Bradford wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 09:18 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 16:46 +0200, Rob Bradford wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > So the way the applier would work under my proposal is:
> > > > > 
> > > > > (1) If the lockdown feature is covered by a meta key (e.g. terminal)
> > > > > then the key would be set and made mandatory at the same time and in the
> > > > > same operation
> > > > > 
> > > > > (2) If the lockdown feature is part of the new generation without
> > > > > explicit lockdown keys this would just set the appropriate keys to
> > > > > mandatory. An example of this would be the background settings. These
> > > > > are governed by three keys. Turning on background lockdown makes these
> > > > > three keys mandatory.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If this was implemented under the current user-interface paradigm this
> > > > > would be like having no checkbox and just a padlock. Which I think would
> > > > > be very confusing. So basically i'm suggesting that the checkbox implies
> > > > > mandatoryness (not a real word) and also the setting of a key in the
> > > > > meta case.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Clear as mud? :)
> > > > 
> > > > Well. I still don't quite understand what you mean. Are you talking
> > > > about the implementation, or the user interface?
> > > 
> > > Both obviously. In the GUI there would be no separate checkbox/padlock.
> > > Just a check box. This has the effect of setting both the checkbox and
> > > padlock in the current implementation for the explicit lockdown keys. 
> > >
> > > But also allows us to go sensibly implement setting mandatory for other
> > > keys. (If we used the existing interface paradigm this would be like
> > > having a padlock but no checkbox.)
> > 
> > But what use is the ability to set something to be mandatory when you're
> > not able to set what its mandatory value is? Like disallowing the user
> > to change the background color, but not allowing the sysadmin to set the
> > default color to use.
> 
> This makes sense under Sabayon, no? Where the admin can set a background
> and then use the lockdown tool to make that immutable?

Eh? Thats what you can currently do in sabayon, yes. With the current
system.

I think the current approach is extremely flexible and nice. Any setting
can be changed just like you normally do it in the UI. Its then very
easy to then mark that change as mandatory in the changes window. This
works for all keys, with no need to add new keys, or a complicated UI to
find the sepcific place where you control the lockdownedness of a
specific key.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Alexander Larsson                                            Red Hat, Inc 
                   alexl redhat com    alla lysator liu se 
He's a notorious playboy cop on his last day in the job. She's a cold-hearted 
out-of-work mermaid with her own daytime radio talk show. They fight crime!