Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #95030 > unrolled thread

System error or Firefox error?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  System error or Firefox error? Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2016-10-01 12:06 -0700
    Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-01 21:05 +0000
      Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-01 21:07 +0000
      Re: System error or Firefox error? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-10-02 11:38 +1300
        Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-02 03:12 +0000
          Re: System error or Firefox error? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-10-02 18:21 +1300
            Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-02 18:22 +0000
              Re: System error or Firefox error? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-10-03 11:32 +1300
                Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-02 23:17 +0000
                Re: System error or Firefox error? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-03 04:10 +0000
                  Re: System error or Firefox error? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-03 01:56 -0500
                Re: System error or Firefox error? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-03 01:54 -0500
                  Re: System error or Firefox error? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-10-04 00:14 +1300
                    Re: System error or Firefox error? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-03 14:27 -0500
                    Re: System error or Firefox error? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-03 22:50 +0000
                      Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-03 23:59 +0000
                  Re: System error or Firefox error? Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2016-10-04 13:37 -0700
                    Re: System error or Firefox error? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-10-05 10:49 +1300
                    Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-04 23:06 +0000
                      Re: System error or Firefox error? Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2016-10-04 18:15 -0700
                        Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-05 03:18 +0000
                          Re: System error or Firefox error? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-06 00:56 -0500
                            Re: System error or Firefox error? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-06 07:07 +0000
                              Re: System error or Firefox error? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-06 10:37 -0500
                                Re: System error or Firefox error? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-06 22:40 +0000
                                  Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-07 00:37 +0000
                                    Re: System error or Firefox error? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-07 14:43 -0500
                                      Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-07 20:06 +0000
                                        Re: System error or Firefox error? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-07 23:06 -0500
                                          Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-08 04:16 +0000
                                          Re: System error or Firefox error? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-08 11:36 +0000
                                            Re: System error or Firefox error? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-08 14:22 -0500
                                              Re: System error or Firefox error? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-08 20:48 +0000
                                      Re: System error or Firefox error? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-07 21:59 +0000
                        Re: System error or Firefox error? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-06 16:33 -0400
                      Re: System error or Firefox error? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-10-05 15:42 +1300
                        Re: System error or Firefox error? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-05 03:23 +0000
          Re: System error or Firefox error? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-02 07:27 +0000
        Re: System error or Firefox error? Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2016-10-02 13:40 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#95030 — System error or Firefox error?

My wife and I both have Administrator accounts on our MacBook Pro 
(running El Capitan); but when she's logged on and Firefox has an update 
that she tries to install, she gets the following message:

"Unable to Update

A recommended security and stability update is available, but you do not 
have the system permissions required to install it. Please contact tour 
system administrator, or try from an account that has permission to 
install software on this computer."

There's no further information.

Any ideas, please?

Paul Magnussen

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#95031

On 2016-10-01, Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:
> My wife and I both have Administrator accounts on our MacBook Pro 
> (running El Capitan); but when she's logged on and Firefox has an update 
> that she tries to install, she gets the following message:
>
> "Unable to Update
>
> A recommended security and stability update is available, but you do not 
> have the system permissions required to install it. Please contact tour 
> system administrator, or try from an account that has permission to 
> install software on this computer."
>
> There's no further information.
>
> Any ideas, please?
>
> Paul Magnussen

To start, I'd check the ownership, group, and permissions of all of the
files within the application package. One or more of them likely denies
access to her user account or group.

To quickly list all of the files with their owner, group, and permission
settings, run this ls command:

ls -lR /Applications/Firefox.app

One quick way to list any files whose group is *not* admin, would be to
run this find command:

find /Applications/Firefox.app -not -group admin

Post the results here if you need help understanding them.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95032

On 2016-10-01, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2016-10-01, Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> My wife and I both have Administrator accounts on our MacBook Pro 
>> (running El Capitan); but when she's logged on and Firefox has an update 
>> that she tries to install, she gets the following message:
>>
>> "Unable to Update
>>
>> A recommended security and stability update is available, but you do not 
>> have the system permissions required to install it. Please contact tour 
>> system administrator, or try from an account that has permission to 
>> install software on this computer."
>>
>> There's no further information.
>>
>> Any ideas, please?
>>
>> Paul Magnussen
>
> To start, I'd check the ownership, group, and permissions of all of the
> files within the application package. One or more of them likely denies
> access to her user account or group.
>
> To quickly list all of the files with their owner, group, and permission
> settings, run this ls command:
>
> ls -lR /Applications/Firefox.app
>
> One quick way to list any files whose group is *not* admin, would be to
> run this find command:
>
> find /Applications/Firefox.app -not -group admin
>
> Post the results here if you need help understanding them.

It would also be helpful to know the output of the id command from her
account - do this in a terminal window:

su heraccountname (enter her password when prompted)
id

Paste the output in a post here.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95041

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2016-10-01, Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > My wife and I both have Administrator accounts on our MacBook Pro 
> > (running El Capitan); but when she's logged on and Firefox has an update
> > that she tries to install, she gets the following message:
> >
> > "Unable to Update
> >
> > A recommended security and stability update is available, but you do not
> > have the system permissions required to install it. Please contact tour
> > system administrator, or try from an account that has permission to
> > install software on this computer."
> >
> > There's no further information.
> >
> > Any ideas, please?
> >
> > Paul Magnussen
> 
> To start, I'd check the ownership, group, and permissions of all of the
> files within the application package. One or more of them likely denies
> access to her user account or group.

No deep mystery here: I've seen the same issue on someone else's
computer where they had two admin accounts and were using Firefox.

When the Firefox application is copied (manually) from the distribution
disk image into /Applications by one admin account, it is owned by that
account, and the permissions on the application package only allow write
access to the owner (not the group or everyone).

If the Firefox built-in updater then runs from the other admin account,
it doesn't have write permission for the application package, and
refuses to install the update. (It doesn't ask for elevated privileges:
it just assumes the current user will be able to write to the
application package.)

It works if the update is run from the admin account which installed the
application.

If one of the accounts does not have admin privileges it is probably
worse because the non-admin user won't be able to write to /Applications
either.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95053

On 2016-10-01, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-10-01, Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> My wife and I both have Administrator accounts on our MacBook Pro 
>>> (running El Capitan); but when she's logged on and Firefox has an update
>>> that she tries to install, she gets the following message:
>>>
>>> "Unable to Update
>>>
>>> A recommended security and stability update is available, but you do not
>>> have the system permissions required to install it. Please contact tour
>>> system administrator, or try from an account that has permission to
>>> install software on this computer."
>>>
>>> There's no further information.
>>>
>> To start, I'd check the ownership, group, and permissions of all of the
>> files within the application package. One or more of them likely denies
>> access to her user account or group.
>
> No deep mystery here: I've seen the same issue on someone else's
> computer where they had two admin accounts and were using Firefox.
>
> When the Firefox application is copied (manually) from the distribution
> disk image into /Applications by one admin account, it is owned by that
> account, and the permissions on the application package only allow write
> access to the owner (not the group or everyone).
>
> If the Firefox built-in updater then runs from the other admin account,
> it doesn't have write permission for the application package, and
> refuses to install the update. (It doesn't ask for elevated privileges:
> it just assumes the current user will be able to write to the
> application package.)

Bad assumption. Firefox should ask the user to authenticate with
administrator credentials like any well-written Mac app would.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95056

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2016-10-01, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-10-01, Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>> My wife and I both have Administrator accounts on our MacBook Pro
> >>> (running El Capitan); but when she's logged on and Firefox has an update
> >>> that she tries to install, she gets the following message:
> >>>
> >>> "Unable to Update
> >>>
> >>> A recommended security and stability update is available, but you do not
> >>> have the system permissions required to install it. Please contact tour
> >>> system administrator, or try from an account that has permission to
> >>> install software on this computer."
> >>>
> >>> There's no further information.
> >>>
> >> To start, I'd check the ownership, group, and permissions of all of the
> >> files within the application package. One or more of them likely denies
> >> access to her user account or group.
> >
> > No deep mystery here: I've seen the same issue on someone else's
> > computer where they had two admin accounts and were using Firefox.
> >
> > When the Firefox application is copied (manually) from the distribution
> > disk image into /Applications by one admin account, it is owned by that
> > account, and the permissions on the application package only allow write
> > access to the owner (not the group or everyone).
> >
> > If the Firefox built-in updater then runs from the other admin account,
> > it doesn't have write permission for the application package, and
> > refuses to install the update. (It doesn't ask for elevated privileges:
> > it just assumes the current user will be able to write to the
> > application package.)
> 
> Bad assumption. Firefox should ask the user to authenticate with
> administrator credentials like any well-written Mac app would.

It isn't that simple after all.

I found this bugzilla entry:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=394984

I haven't read it all (too long), but from a bit I found in earlier
comments, the "... you do not have system permissions ..." message
mentioned in Paul's OP means that Firefox tried to get elevated
permissions to install the update but it was not able to do so for some
reason.

It appears that the mechanism they are using has been broken in recent
Firefox and/or OS versions. If the details near the end of that bugzilla
entry are correct, there may be a fix for it in Firefox 49.

I can't test that right now, because it appears that 49.0 doesn't think
49.0.1 counts as an update (it only mentions a Windows-specific fix).

With 48.0.2 installed, Firefox in my second admin account won't even try
to install 49.x as an update - it just tells me there is an update
available and provides a link to Mozilla's web site for me to install it
manually.

On my normal admin account (the one which installed Firefox), 48.0.2 was
able to update itself to 49.0.1, but that doesn't help answer the
question.
-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95072

On 2016-10-02, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2016-10-01, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> > If the Firefox built-in updater then runs from the other admin account,
>> > it doesn't have write permission for the application package, and
>> > refuses to install the update. (It doesn't ask for elevated privileges:
>> > it just assumes the current user will be able to write to the
>> > application package.)
>> 
>> Bad assumption. Firefox should ask the user to authenticate with
>> administrator credentials like any well-written Mac app would.
>
> It isn't that simple after all.

What we know is it's not that complicated for a Mac app to to ask for
administrator credentials and use them. Plenty of Mac apps do just that
without issue. So whatever Firefox happens to be doing is obviously
sub-par for a well-written Mac app.

In the mean time, the OP can solve his issue by examining the ownership
and permissions of the Firefox application and changing them to allow
all administrators write access. A simple chmod -R g+w
/Applications/Firefox.app would add group write permissions to the
entire application package.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95085

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2016-10-02, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> On 2016-10-01, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > If the Firefox built-in updater then runs from the other admin account,
> >> > it doesn't have write permission for the application package, and
> >> > refuses to install the update. (It doesn't ask for elevated privileges:
> >> > it just assumes the current user will be able to write to the
> >> > application package.)
> >> 
> >> Bad assumption. Firefox should ask the user to authenticate with
> >> administrator credentials like any well-written Mac app would.
> >
> > It isn't that simple after all.
> 
> What we know is it's not that complicated for a Mac app to to ask for
> administrator credentials and use them. Plenty of Mac apps do just that
> without issue. So whatever Firefox happens to be doing is obviously
> sub-par for a well-written Mac app.
> 
> In the mean time, the OP can solve his issue by examining the ownership
> and permissions of the Firefox application and changing them to allow
> all administrators write access. A simple chmod -R g+w
> /Applications/Firefox.app would add group write permissions to the
> entire application package.

That won't help long: as soon as Firefox installs an update as a
different user, it will end up with permissions that are messed up.
Confirmed by testing the 48.0.2 to 49.0.1 self-update again:

Call my users admin1 and admin2 (admin1 is the one which installed
Firefox 48.0.2 by drag-and-drop).

admin1: chmod -R g+w /Applications/Firefox.app

admin2: launch Firefox, About Firefox, it sees an update is available
and downloads it automatically, provides a Restart Firefox button. After
restart, Firefox 49.0.1 is running.

Looking inside Firefox.app, the permissions are now:

/Applications/Firefox.app: still owned by admin1 with 775 permissions
(group write still enabled).

/Applications/Firefox.app/Contents: now owned by admin2 with 755
permissions (group write disabled).

Folders and files inside Contents are owned by admin2 with a mixture of
permissions, some have group write, others don't.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95090

On 2016-10-02, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-10-02, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2016-10-01, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > If the Firefox built-in updater then runs from the other admin account,
>> >> > it doesn't have write permission for the application package, and
>> >> > refuses to install the update. (It doesn't ask for elevated privileges:
>> >> > it just assumes the current user will be able to write to the
>> >> > application package.)
>> >> 
>> >> Bad assumption. Firefox should ask the user to authenticate with
>> >> administrator credentials like any well-written Mac app would.
>> >
>> > It isn't that simple after all.
>> 
>> What we know is it's not that complicated for a Mac app to to ask for
>> administrator credentials and use them. Plenty of Mac apps do just that
>> without issue. So whatever Firefox happens to be doing is obviously
>> sub-par for a well-written Mac app.
>> 
>> In the mean time, the OP can solve his issue by examining the ownership
>> and permissions of the Firefox application and changing them to allow
>> all administrators write access. A simple chmod -R g+w
>> /Applications/Firefox.app would add group write permissions to the
>> entire application package.
>
> That won't help long: as soon as Firefox installs an update as a
> different user, it will end up with permissions that are messed up.

That's what you get for using Firefox, I suppose. Until they fix their
app, you'll just have to fix it yourself.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95093

In message <1mujj7q.15u0dlgya74fkN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> 
  David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

>> On 2016-10-02, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2016-10-01, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > If the Firefox built-in updater then runs from the other admin account,
>> >> > it doesn't have write permission for the application package, and
>> >> > refuses to install the update. (It doesn't ask for elevated privileges:
>> >> > it just assumes the current user will be able to write to the
>> >> > application package.)
>> >> 
>> >> Bad assumption. Firefox should ask the user to authenticate with
>> >> administrator credentials like any well-written Mac app would.
>> >
>> > It isn't that simple after all.
>> 
>> What we know is it's not that complicated for a Mac app to to ask for
>> administrator credentials and use them. Plenty of Mac apps do just that
>> without issue. So whatever Firefox happens to be doing is obviously
>> sub-par for a well-written Mac app.
>> 
>> In the mean time, the OP can solve his issue by examining the ownership
>> and permissions of the Firefox application and changing them to allow
>> all administrators write access. A simple chmod -R g+w
>> /Applications/Firefox.app would add group write permissions to the
>> entire application package.

> That won't help long: as soon as Firefox installs an update as a
> different user, it will end up with permissions that are messed up.
> Confirmed by testing the 48.0.2 to 49.0.1 self-update again:

> Call my users admin1 and admin2 (admin1 is the one which installed
> Firefox 48.0.2 by drag-and-drop).

> admin1: chmod -R g+w /Applications/Firefox.app

> admin2: launch Firefox, About Firefox, it sees an update is available
> and downloads it automatically, provides a Restart Firefox button. After
> restart, Firefox 49.0.1 is running.

> Looking inside Firefox.app, the permissions are now:

> /Applications/Firefox.app: still owned by admin1 with 775 permissions
> (group write still enabled).

> /Applications/Firefox.app/Contents: now owned by admin2 with 755
> permissions (group write disabled).

> Folders and files inside Contents are owned by admin2 with a mixture of
> permissions, some have group write, others don't.

Can you apply an ACL that any folders inherit? You could set
/Applications to be writable by wheel (which I though was the case
anyway) and force it to apply to folders.

Been awhile since i messed with ACLs, though I used to use them quite a
bit and this seems like something I could do.


-- 
It was sad music. But it waved its sadness like a battle flag. It said
the universe had done all it could, but you were still alive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95096

On 10-02-2016 23:10, Lewis wrote:
> Can you apply an ACL that any folders inherit? You could set
> /Applications to be writable by wheel (which I though was the case
> anyway) and force it to apply to folders.

sudo chown -R admin:staff /Applications
sudo chmod -R g+s !$

ACL not needed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95095

On 10-02-2016 17:32, David Empson wrote:
> That won't help long: as soon as Firefox installs an update as a
> different user, it will end up with permissions that are messed up.
> Confirmed by testing the 48.0.2 to 49.0.1 self-update again:

If the admin account is only used for administration, why would you need 
two of them?

I've had only one since OS 10.0 and never needed another.  And all 
installations and updates done there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95097

Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:

> On 10-02-2016 17:32, David Empson wrote:
> > That won't help long: as soon as Firefox installs an update as a
> > different user, it will end up with permissions that are messed up.
> > Confirmed by testing the 48.0.2 to 49.0.1 self-update again:
> 
> If the admin account is only used for administration, why would you need
> two of them?

I have a spare account in case there is a problem with my main account,
or I want to exclude account-specific issues when testing for problems.

In the case of the original poster, and the people I was helping where I
first noticed this multi-user Firefox update problem, there are two
people using the computer, each of whom has a separate user account,
each of which has admin rights so they can administer the shared
computer easily.

> I've had only one since OS 10.0 and never needed another.  And all 
> installations and updates done there.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95126

On 10-03-2016 06:14, David Empson wrote:
> In the case of the original poster, and the people I was helping where I
> first noticed this multi-user Firefox update problem, there are two
> people using the computer, each of whom has a separate user account,
> each of which has admin rights so they can administer the shared
> computer easily.

Still, if my wife were capable of admin, we would both know the password 
to a single admin accont and each have separate non-admin accounts.

A backup account for problems is reasonable.  I have a couple of 
bootable USB sticks for such things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95155

In message <1mukikr.1m5efybkp9x3tN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> 
  David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:

>> On 10-02-2016 17:32, David Empson wrote:
>> > That won't help long: as soon as Firefox installs an update as a
>> > different user, it will end up with permissions that are messed up.
>> > Confirmed by testing the 48.0.2 to 49.0.1 self-update again:
>> 
>> If the admin account is only used for administration, why would you need
>> two of them?

> I have a spare account in case there is a problem with my main account,
> or I want to exclude account-specific issues when testing for problems.

> In the case of the original poster, and the people I was helping where I
> first noticed this multi-user Firefox update problem, there are two
> people using the computer, each of whom has a separate user account,
> each of which has admin rights so they can administer the shared
> computer easily.

Meh. That's not the way to handle that though.

User1: Standard account
User2: Standard account
Admin: Admin account User1 and User2 know the password for but never
login to other than emergencies.

It's still better to run as a standard user (even with SIP).

What I would do for users Gavin and Stacey is create the three accounts as
above, then add the following aliases to the Admin account:

Gavin Jones
Stacey Jones
gavinadmin
staceyadmin

Tell Gavin to use either Gavin Jones or Gavinadmin for admin tasks and tell
Stacey to use Stacey Jones or Staceyadmin. This makes it easier on them
to remember.

Yes, it means you have to authenticate to install an applications into
/Applications, but that's fine because I ALSO tell Ned & Stacey to put
applications that are just for them in ~/Applications.

(Gavin and Stacey was an excellent UK TV series a few years back).

-- 
'What ho, b'zugda-hiara.' (Footnote: A killing insult in Dwarfish. It
means 'Lawn ornament'.)  --Wyrd Sisters

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95185

On 2016-10-03, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <1mukikr.1m5efybkp9x3tN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> 
>   David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>> In the case of the original poster, and the people I was helping where I
>> first noticed this multi-user Firefox update problem, there are two
>> people using the computer, each of whom has a separate user account,
>> each of which has admin rights so they can administer the shared
>> computer easily.
>
> Meh. That's not the way to handle that though.
>
> User1: Standard account
> User2: Standard account
> Admin: Admin account User1 and User2 know the password for but never
> login to other than emergencies.

Yep, that's what we do here as well.

> It's still better to run as a standard user (even with SIP).

Yep! See: the least privilege principle.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95256

Happy.Hobo wrote:

> If the admin account is only used for administration, why would you need 
> two of them?
> 
> I've had only one since OS 10.0 and never needed another.  And all 
> installations and updates done there.

So that when my wife gets an update notification for whatever app she's 
using, she doesn't have either to

1) Remember to tell me about it, tell me about it, then wait for me to 
do it, or

2) Stop what's she's doing, remember where she was, log out, log in to 
my ID, install the update, log out, log back in again and try to recover 
her lost train of thought.

Yes we could enable fast user switching, but there doesn't seem much point.

Paul Magnussen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95257

Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Happy.Hobo wrote:
> 
> > If the admin account is only used for administration, why would you need
> > two of them?
> > 
> > I've had only one since OS 10.0 and never needed another.  And all 
> > installations and updates done there.
> 
> So that when my wife gets an update notification for whatever app she's
> using, she doesn't have either to
> 
> 1) Remember to tell me about it, tell me about it, then wait for me to
> do it, or
> 
> 2) Stop what's she's doing, remember where she was, log out, log in to
> my ID, install the update, log out, log back in again and try to recover
> her lost train of thought.

Given that Firefox's auto update mechanism doesn't work properly for
more than one user, and assuming you are also running Firefox regularly
in your account, the easiest solution would be for your wife to turn off
auto updates for Firefox in her account.

Firefox > Preferences > Advanced > Update

Choose either:

"Check for updates, but let me choose whether to install them"

or

"Never check for updates (not recommended: security risk)".

The "check" option would at least give you a better chance of her
mentioning to you that Firefox has an update available. You then install
the update next time you are using the computer.

If your wife tends to be using Firefox more often than you, it might be
better to reverse this: delete Firefox and install it again from her
account, then she does automatic updates while you only check for
updates and rely on her to install them.

The other option would be for one of you to stop using Firefox. If only
one user is running it, and that user is the one who installed it, and
that user has admin privileges, then the auto update mechanism will
work.

> Yes we could enable fast user switching, but there doesn't seem much point.

That might make Firefox updating worse: Firefox needs to restart when
the update has been installed, which involves replacing parts of the
application. I haven't checked what happens if multiple logged in users
are running Firefox at that point.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95263

On 2016-10-04, Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Happy.Hobo wrote:
>
>> If the admin account is only used for administration, why would you need 
>> two of them?
>> 
>> I've had only one since OS 10.0 and never needed another.  And all 
>> installations and updates done there.
>
> So that when my wife gets an update notification for whatever app she's 
> using, she doesn't have either to
>
> 1) Remember to tell me about it, tell me about it, then wait for me to 
> do it, or
>
> 2) Stop what's she's doing, remember where she was, log out, log in to 
> my ID, install the update, log out, log back in again and try to recover 
> her lost train of thought.
>
> Yes we could enable fast user switching, but there doesn't seem much point.

There's no reason for any of that nonsense. Have one admin account,
share the password between you and your wife, then whenever an
application asks for the admin user name and password, either of you can
provide it without having to log into any other account.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95269

Jolly Roger wrote:

> 
> There's no reason for any of that nonsense. Have one admin account,
> share the password between you and your wife, then whenever an
> application asks for the admin user name and password, either of you can
> provide it without having to log into any other account.

So if the wife is to have my admin password, what's the advantage over 
simply giving her account admin privileges, as at present?

Paul Magnussen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web