OSX To Feature Portable User Accounts?

eldavojohn writes "A new patent filed by Apple is causing speculation that OSX is soon to receive a new feature. From the article: '[the patent states] that the user account may be stored alongside general data storage or "other functionality". All of which seems to suggest that at some time soon we may be able to load our user accounts onto an iPod, hard drive or USB keydrive and take them wherever we go.'"

Comments

Impressive

[TCM]

If only other systems had thought of that. You could implement it so that all the data of one user is stored in a single directory, called home directory.

We could even invent a new notation specifically for that. Like, I don't know, ~user/ or something.

Man, Apple users get all the goodies. :(

Re:Impressive

[hypnagogue]

You may want to consider that the problem is more subtle than that.

Just because you have your home directory on an iPod connected to a foreign Mac doesn't mean that you can authenticate and log in. Wouldn't it be interesting if you could have, in your home directory, credentials signed by a trustee that you could use to log in to any system, with your access limited to writing to public areas or your own home directory. Furthermore, encrypt that image on the iPod so that it can't be accessed unless you authenticate successfully. I'm not sure what the scope of the invention is, since I refuse to read patents or patent applications, but it might be a great solution to a tough problem. It also has implications for DRM licensing schemes -- licenses that apply to the user, not the computer.

I know sarcasm is like breathing after a few years on slashdot, but this might actually be an interesting invention. We'll have to wait and see.

Re:Impressive

[Lussarn]

This is straight from the patent:

A few sophisticated users have modified operation of existing operating systems, such as Mac OS X, to provide some portability to their user account from a work computer to a home computer. This requires specialized software tools to manipulate and modify the data structures for a user account in a database (e.g., netinfo database). Armed with such specialized tools, a very sophisticated user would first establish a local user account on the multi-user computer (work computer), and then use the specialized tools to edit the location of the default user directory, such that it is made to reside on an external storage device. Then, at the other location where a multi-user computer (home computer) is to be used by the same user, a user account would be again established on such a machine, and then using special tools to render the user identifier the same as that which the work computer used when creating the user account at the work computer.

So basically they say that prior art do exist. They even admit (in the fscking patent application!) "a few sophisticated users" have already done this, and now they want to steal that work and patent it. Isn't that great.

These modifications to the multi-user computers are not intended modifications and thus tend to compromise the reliability of the operation of the multi-user computers.

This would translate to "if something isn't invented by Apple it doesn't count as prior art".

Further, the required specialized tools, although available, are neither well documented nor user-friendly.

But they do exists, as you admit in your application. This looks like the kind of bullshit these companies puts in EULAs to make them stand up better against the laws, with the difference that this is a patent application and now it's used to stand up better to prior art.

or a DRM limitation

[doodlelogic]

Maybe for movies the studios are demanding only the paying user can view on their iPod - so movie downloads will be tied to a user account on each device.

= instant rootkit!

[dolphinling]

Wheee, I'll put my root account on my ipod and then I can take over any box I want! Woohoo!

Except wait. I don't run OSX. I run Linux. And I don't have an ipod.

Oh well.

Prior art?

[SIGBUS]

Such functionality is already available in Knoppix. Not only can you store your configuration and updates on a USB thumb drive or HD, but the OS itself is portable, too.

Re:Prior art?

[lmpeters]

I think the idea here is that the home directory is mirrored on the internal hard disk AND an external device of some kind. Then again, I think InterMezzo has prior art on that. So this may seem like a novel idea for your average PC user, but it's not novel enough to warrant a patent.

Of course, it's not like the USPTO hasn't ever issued a patent on something that should never have been patentable...

Hmm...doesnt windows have this?

[dontbflat]

This sure sounds a lot like romming profiles on windows. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but thats just my take on it.

Re:Hmm...doesnt windows have this?

[mr_matticus]

Roaming profiles is a synchronization mess unless the profiles are server-managed. I've never really seen roaming profiles successfully employed outside of the corporate environment. Sure, you and I are capable of handling it, but the devil's in the details, as they say.

If Apple pulls this off, it will be seamless and invisible and mostly foolproof--three adjectives you'll never hear associated with roaming profiles.

So when...

[Quaoar]

...does Apple release their 5TB iPod to help make my porn collection mobile? Or am I going to have to carry around a backpack full of them?

Feature removed from 10.3

[bubba451]

This was actually once promised and even advertised as part of 10.3 "Panther" and then was inexplicably removed. Here was the marketing blurb:

Home away from home

Ever thought you could carry your home in the palm of your hands or in your pocket? You can. Panther's Home on iPod feature lets you store your home directory - files, folders, apps - on your iPod (or any FireWire hard drive) and take it with you wherever you go. When you find yourself near a Panther-equipped Mac, just plug in the iPod, log in, and you're "home," no matter where you happen to be. And when you return to your home computer, you can synchronize any changes you've made to your files by using File Sync, which automatically updates offline changes to your home directory.

Mac Rumors has some of the history.

Re:Feature removed from 10.3

[NatasRevol]

At the time, according to some, the real problem was the hard drive of the iPod it isn't/wasn't designed to be used as a real HD, running for hours continuously. Hence the cache and spin up/spin down. Yeah, it saves on battery life, but it also saves the HD life.

But I still put OS X, drive utils & my home dir there. Very nice if you have accounts on your work & home mac. And my iPod is still going 4 yrs later, so I guess it wasn't too hard, or I got lucky.

[offtopic] Binary fun

[toadlife]

"There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.

So what is the third type? Those who think they can?

So Apple patents automounting home directories ?

[ccandreva]

Amazing. To bad nobody thought of that 20 years ago.

Oh wait.

Re:In the palm of your hand?

[Daniel_Staal]

Yeah, but it's in a proprietary encrypted format which is unreadable without specialized equipment. (That has all been reverse-engineered to read the format: the original creator refuses to open their toolkit.)

Absolutely correct

[mbessey]

The original iPod hard drives (from the 5 and 10 GB models) had a very short guaranteed run time. That wasn't a problem for the iPod as a music player, or for occasional file transfer, since the drive was turned off 90% or more of the time. OS X likes to write to the home directory frequently, though, so "Portable Home Directories" (as they were known at the time) had the potential to wear out the iPod's hard drive very quickly (a matter of weeks or months).

It turns out that the ACTUAL run time to failure for those drives was typically much longer than promised, so lots of folks have had success with using them as "live" drives. I have no idea what the specs on the current generation of iPod hard drives are, but I'd bet they're considerably more durable.

Hey, what do you know - Toshiba has published the specifications for the original 5GB iPod drive online:
http://www3.toshiba.co.jp/storage/english/spec/hdd /mk5002.htm#relia

That page claims a "product life" of "5 years or 20,000 POH (Power-On-Hours)". 20,000 hours is just over 2.25 years of continuous operation. Given that you can get a 2-year warranty for an iPod through AppleCare these days, that doesn't sound like a very good risk.

I don't happen to have a copy of the original spec sheet we got with the first-generation drives, but my recollection is that the quoted life span was much shorter - short enough that warranty returns for worn-out drives was a real concern if they were kept running all the time, even with the shorter warranties offered at the time (anybody else remember 90-day iPod warranties?).

Of course, for Flash devices (like those in the Shuffle and Nano) the lifetime is specified in terms of a certain number of write operations, rather than total time "turned on". The expected lifetime for an iPod Shuffle used as a home directory is probably very very long - dozens of years.