To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The multi-user concept is not the only way to provide security. An operating system is not inherently insecure because it does not provide multi-user support.
Here is an hypothetical operating system: It does not have a multi-user implementation. However, privileged operations can only be performed by passing security mechanisms like fingerprint or retina scans. Does that make it more insecure than a multi-user operating system?
Multi-user systems have their own issues. Think privilege escalation, confused deputy problem etc...
Computer security is a complex thing and there is no -one way- of dealing with it.
You don't need a multi-user scenario to prevent things like that, you need something like sudo/UAC, a special passworded command that allows you to do things which can affect the actual system.
It is the risks associated with running everything with the same privileges. And having no per user structure to keep files and preferences separate.
I am really looking forwards to the next Haiku alpha / beta but compared other operating systems there are important missing features.





Member since:
2011-10-17
Could you please explain how a single user OS is a security nightmare these days?
Edited 2012-08-29 15:36 UTC