Isn't there rudimentary ACL implementation in the kernel? An ACL would do
the job nicely...
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Peter Eckersley wrote:
> >
> >
> > If my I want a file to be readable by everybody *except* user fred, I
> > can set permissions:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTEC
> "exa" == exa writes:
exa> I use bash. Is this zsh better? :)
Yes.
--
Stephen
"A duck!"
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 12:14:54PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > This is a big nuisance. I spent months working on a project with
> > a shared directory without individual user groups. Worse yet, you
> > can end up with a CVS repository full of files with user-only
>
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> This is a big nuisance. I spent months working on a project with
> a shared directory without individual user groups. Worse yet, you
> can end up with a CVS repository full of files with user-only
> permissions (using a local CVS repositor, rather than remote).
>
Ok. Th
Peter Eckersley wrote:
>
>
> If my I want a file to be readable by everybody *except* user fred, I
> can set permissions:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> ls -l plot-against-fred
> -rwr--1 pde fred 1 Dec 27 17:12 plot-against-fred
>
> Of course, I need root access to do it :(
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 12:38:28PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 04:43:53AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> > > I like using groups to give different sets of rights and I'm
> > > annoyed by Debian giving every user his own group. Is tha
Hi
Brian May schrieb:
> > "Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hamish> On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 11:13:13AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> >> However, the idea of one UID per daemon is (IMHO) a really
> >> horrible solution, too, as you end up having more UIDs for
>
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 12:38:28PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> I always thought it was a paranoid kind of security "feature"
> in Debian. I might be wrong of course.
>
> How does giving every user his own group makes it easier for
> him to share files without system administrator's interven
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 12:38:28PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> > No, but it's a good idea. It makes it much easier to work in
> > directories shared with other users (but not all users), because
> > you don't have to keep changing your umask all the time, or
> > even worse, fixing file perm
Brian May wrote:
> zsh has in /etc/zshrc:
>
> [[ $UID == $GID ]] && umask 002 || umask 022
>
> My only dislike is it overrides my default setup in ~/.zshenv of 077.
> It seems wrong to put this stuff in zshrc, that only gets used for
> interactive shells. zshenv gets processed for all shells, but
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 04:43:53AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> > I like using groups to give different sets of rights and I'm
> > annoyed by Debian giving every user his own group. Is that
> > reall necessary?
>
> No, but it's a good idea. It makes it much easier
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 04:43:53AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> I like using groups to give different sets of rights and I'm
> annoyed by Debian giving every user his own group. Is that
> reall necessary?
No, but it's a good idea. It makes it much easier to work in
directories shared with ot
> "Eray" == Eray Ozkural exa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eray> Yep. I discovered that umask issue. I guess it's still a
Eray> problem.
zsh has in /etc/zshrc:
[[ $UID == $GID ]] && umask 002 || umask 022
My only dislike is it overrides my default setup in ~/.zshenv of 077.
It seems w
Brian May wrote:
>
> > "exa" == exa writes:
>
> exa> Brian May wrote:
> >> - harder to administrate /etc/passwd as more users exist.
>
> exa> I like using groups to give different sets of rights and I'm
> exa> annoyed by Debian giving every user his own group. Is that
>
Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 04:43:53AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> > I like using groups to give different sets of rights and I'm
> > annoyed by Debian giving every user his own group. Is that
> > reall necessary?
>
> It's useful when you're in a development environm
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 04:43:53AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Brian May wrote:
> >
> > - harder to administrate /etc/passwd as more users exist.
>
> I like using groups to give different sets of rights and I'm
> annoyed by Debian giving every user his own group. Is that
> reall necessary?
> "exa" == exa writes:
exa> Brian May wrote:
>> - harder to administrate /etc/passwd as more users exist.
exa> I like using groups to give different sets of rights and I'm
exa> annoyed by Debian giving every user his own group. Is that
exa> reall necessary?
I don't do t
Brian May wrote:
>
> - harder to administrate /etc/passwd as more users exist.
I like using groups to give different sets of rights and I'm
annoyed by Debian giving every user his own group. Is that
reall necessary?
cu,
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail:
> "Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hamish> On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 11:13:13AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
>> However, the idea of one UID per daemon is (IMHO) a really
>> horrible solution, too, as you end up having more UIDs for
>> daemons then users.
Ha
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 11:48:35AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 11:13:13AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > However, the idea of one UID per daemon is (IMHO) a really horrible
> > solution, too, as you end up having more UIDs for daemons then
> > users.
>
> Why is that a prob
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 11:13:13AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> However, the idea of one UID per daemon is (IMHO) a really horrible
> solution, too, as you end up having more UIDs for daemons then
> users.
Why is that a problem? There are 65536 available UIDs.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMA
> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russell> On Saturday 23 December 2000 09:13, KORN Andras wrote:
>> I feel that there exists a general confusion among some Debian
>> developers as to what user ids such as 'nobody' should be used
>> for. I suggest that th
On Saturday 23 December 2000 09:13, KORN Andras wrote:
> I feel that there exists a general confusion among some Debian developers
> as to what user ids such as 'nobody' should be used for. I suggest that the
> policy be updated with relevant advice.
Nobody should never be used. If you use nobody
Package: general
Version: 20001222
Severity: important
Hi,
I feel that there exists a general confusion among some Debian developers as
to what user ids such as 'nobody' should be used for. I suggest that the
policy be updated with relevant advice.
As I see it, 'nobody' should be a user that own
24 matches
Mail list logo
