> Who's standard do we adopt? Ninty-nine does not seem large enough for uid > growth. What about the gid range?
Customers want <100 > In addition to your admin uid <= 99 proposal, should there be an admin > range for gids? Customers want <100 Do we allocate a range very high in 32bit uid space as well ? Discuss 8) > Being raised BSD in a SysV world, I've always assumed a umask of 022. :-) Being raised in the non academic world I assume a umask of 077. > With regard to the LSB specification we should be narrowly focused on the > local filesystem and the POSIX APIs and not give much regard to NFS, AFS, > DFS, or LDAP ACLs. We should be concerned about the affects umask has on > open, mkdir, chmod, and exec. System admin's can do what ever they like; > however, there should be a default behavior (ie., 022). We should be narrowly focused. And when you consider the narrowness of focus then we shouldnt be specifying this at all. It doesn't matter if I am right or you are right - its end user policy, its going to vary and therefore applications have to work regardless. Therefore we gain nothing but annoyed users by specifying it..
