[Sugar-devel] Enhancing Sugar to support multiple users
simon at schampijer.de
Mon Sep 6 10:30:33 EDT 2010
On 09/06/2010 10:14 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 02:24, Samuel Klein<meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Sascha Silbe
>> <sascha-ml-reply-to-2010-2 at silbe.org> wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Christoph Derndorfer's message of Sun Sep 05 21:57:09 +0200 2010:
>>>> I just created a new ticket (http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/2292) to get
>>>> some discussions started on what changes need to be made to Sugar to work
>>>> well in an environment where multiple users will work on the same machine
>>>> (which is how Peru's next 300,000 XOs will be used:
>>> I don't think we should change anything in Sugar, for two orthogonal reasons:
>>> 1. There is already an existing, proven, well-working mechanism to
>>> support multiple users on the same machine that's way older than
>>> Sugar: user accounts. Check out any computer lab at a university
>>> to see how it works (though I suppose you already know).
>> Supporting user accounts is not a novel mechanism, and probably
>> sufficient, but doing it in a Sugar-like way would still benefit from
>> child-focused design and input. It's something that would be good to
>> see as part of / a flavor of Sugar one day, rather than as an external
>> hack by people trying to use Sugar "as nature never intended".
> I'm confused by this, Sugar's architecture follows closely that of
> other modern X11-based desktops which also means it will just work
> fine in a multi-user system.
> Running parallel instances of Sugar each on its own account is
> something that should be completely supported by Sugar's architecture
> and not a hack at all.
>>> 2. If the Peru government wants Sugar to adapt to being used by multiple
>>> users (in what way exactly?), let _them_ do the work.
>> The question of the right way to support multiple users on a single
>> Sugar instance (usb key, computer) is separate from "who will do the
>>> (If OTOH you use one account per child, there's nothing to change in
>>> Sugar, so no reason for a ticket).
>> I don't think you can give Sugar an accountname as a startup
>> parameter, so there's at least something to change.
> When you start Sugar, you are already in an user account, so you don't
> really need to give it an username.
> What is going to allow the user to choose an account with which to log
> in is a display manager and you have several implementations to choose
> from. All should work fine with Sugar.
> I believe Simon has used this deployment mode in his pilots in Berlin.
Yes, we  use GDM to login. The school server uses the school's LDAP
server to authenticate the learner. NFS is used to bind network drives;
hence to make the learner's Sugar profile available.
So either you have several accounts on one machine or you use a remote
More information about the Sugar-devel