Can I lock or hide an open application ????

djbeta

Registered
I searched for this and couldn't find what I was looking for.

I have an imac that has a copy of Filemaker Pro on it that runs some scripts on served File. This is really the imac's only purpose, and I would love to share the mac with the rest of my group, however, I am too scared that they might quit, or worse, try to use that open instance of Filemaker Pro.

Is there a way I can allow people to work on that logged-in user without having access to that application ?

AND is there a way I can hide that application from the dock and prevent users from being able to log out / log back into another user ?

Thanks!! :)
 

Mikuro

Crotchety UI Nitpicker
As far as I know, no. However, you could have FileMaker running in its own separate user account and have everyone use a different account using Fast User Switching. That way FileMaker would run completely invisibly, and a password would be required to go back to FileMaker's user account, so it would effectively be locked. Would that work for you?
 

djbeta

Registered
Thanks for the suggestions, but this is not an option-- I already tried.
Networking is shut down to a user account that is in the background. And this instance of Filemaker needs to be talking to the Filemaker Server.
If only networking was still possible to a user in the background.. that would
answer the problem.
 

chevy

Marvelous Da Vinci
Staff member
Mod
Networking is shut down for a user in the background ? Very strange !
 

chevy

Marvelous Da Vinci
Staff member
Mod
It's surely not its default operation, as my children can continue download data from Internet when they are in background.
 

ElDiabloConCaca

U.S.D.A. Prime
Yep, same here -- I can switch users and still be downloading/FTP'ing/SSH'ing with the user account that's in the background.

What you want to do is counter-intuitive. A "server" machine (one that runs a server-type application) should not be used as a workstation, and vice-versa. You will find many a headache trying to work this way, as OS X is just not designed to operate this way (nor is UNIX or Linux, either). A user using a specific user account should have access to all applications currently running under that user ID. Trying to restrict access to a user's own process goes against 30 years of UNIX thinking.

I would recommend leaving the iMac as a server and not letting people have access to it if the threat of someone quitting FileMaker is not an option.
 

djbeta

Registered
Wow.. really.. that's surprising that fast user switching allows for networking..
are you guys running Tiger or Panther ?

because on this imac (10.3.9), when I switch to another user, the filemaker client on that inactive user loses its connection to the filemaker server

the imac is *not* a server.. i just want it to talk to one of the filemaker server machines and I don't want the client app that is talking to the server to be touched..

maybe networking works but filemaker <--> filemaker server loses the connection.. is there some setting on fast user switching that allows networking ?

hmm.. thanks guys.. i'll look more into this.
 

ElDiabloConCaca

U.S.D.A. Prime
It worked for me under both Panther and Tiger -- I'd leave Safari or other applications downloading a new Fedora Core release and use Fast User Switching to switch to another account or back to the login screen. Downloads continued under the background user in both situations.

I've heard that wireless networking may shut down when a user logs out, and that certain applications, like iChat, will log out when a user is switched. Are you using any of these? Perhaps FileMaker is one of those applications... can you try simply switching back to the login screen (instead of switching to a new user) and see if networking with FileMaker still works? Perhaps it's just in the event that a user switches directly to another user that networking cuts out...
 

djbeta

Registered
Well.. Filemaker does disconnect on 10.3.9.. but I just tried it on a Tiger machine, and it works !!!

so I guess I should just upgrade to Tiger on that machine..

thanks guys :)
 
Top