Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag
But that's just what "superuser" means in Unix...
No there are huge differences, sure you could call that "superuser" but that's not the usual definition of the term.
Supervisor would perhaps be used to describe that initial state but even that is stretching.
(If anything my example have the actual user as superuser as he/she is the one that can give rights to others)
Ok but all you've done is make the programs be the "users".
Only if you currently are calling programs "users". That isn't the usual definition of users but...
There is nothing about "multi-user" that requires that the "users" be human beings. It is an abstract concept.
Anyway i think there is some confusion between the terms "single user" and "multi-user" because the word "user" means something different in each case. A "single user OS" is really one that has no concept of users at all; it is a "userless OS".
It is you that applies the term user to anything that have privileges.
It is you that claims a system with several privileged entities is a multi-user system.
But that is just you redefining terms. Not me confusing things.
The result is a kind of reverse no true Scotsman, whatever I describe you just reply "that's a Scotsman" ignoring the normal definition (someone from Scotland).
This isn't productive as a discussion, I hope it have been productive for someone interested in security models though.