![]() Seems a bit silly to have to do so on sub-standard PC speakers when I've got a Sonos in the room - but not within cord reach. However, while working I occasionally want to listen to podcasts which I can't find on Sonos's native sources. I have a Sonos in my office and it's wonderful. Until then, use the Connect units, that is what they are there for.Īgreed. They may well make a unit specifically for the PC geeks, just as they have added hardware like the TV soundbar, and also services and functionality FOR FREE since they came out in the mid naughties. So asking for a Sonos unit to perform a core function of playing the sound of cats surfboarding on youtube, or whatever, IS asking for a Ford to fly. The award winning wireless part comes from playing one Sonos unit to another - for playing music in different rooms at precisely the same time. Its core function is a MULTI ROOM MUSIC SYSTEM. Sonos is an audiophile business that has opened up to the mass market with its Play units. The solution to what people are moaning about in this thread already exists, and has done for many many years. If you want PC integrated into the Sonos SYSTEM then buy a Sonos Connect and plug your PC speakers into it. If you want PC speakers, buy some PC speakers. This shouldn't be a difficult addition to their controllers, and it looks like it's a huge negative for Sonos at the moment. If Sonos wants to survive, they need to listen to us - the people that drive their business and keep it alive. We live in a market driven world, we are the market. We are simply telling Sonos what their customers want. As with LogonUser only worse I don't see how this is an answer.I think this point has already been made on this page somewhere, but if we must mention it again then so be it. RunAs: Requires password be entered at PROMPT!.LogonUser: Requires a password in plain text.If some solutions are superior, please share your thoughts on whatever you are aware of in this regard. Require minimal coding unique to Windows.Easy to implement for non-Windows programmers, and.I am keen to know all such mechanisms, and am especially focused on those which are: The project is written in a combination of C and Java - a C program with SUID set calls the Java code. (In this way, it could more easily determine what is OK for the project to touch and what is not.) It's first security concern is that it needs to protect its own files from the user (which is simply any user other than the file owner) and it would be very nice if it had the ability to switch to "user context" to access the file system as if it were the calling user. The project does not need system root privileges. Note that the project's executables do not call the SETUID library call though, frankly, that would be a great feature to add, in my opinion, given what the project does. In the mean time, how can I replicate this type of behavior on Windows systems? Plans are to move the project to a client-server architecture but that's going to take some time. This way, it has access to things that the user does not, and thereby these things are protected from the user by normal file system protections. In this way, when it runs, it runs in the context of the file's owner, not the calling user. I have a project that uses an executable in the user's PATH which is owned by the project and which has the SUID bit set. ![]() To understand what I'm asking, it's important to distinguish from among the several uses of SUID in Unix.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |