Mike Gerdts wrote:
> On 11/6/06, Darren J Moffat wrote:
>> While it isn't particularly necessary on machines with small numbers of
>> users if you have every logged into a big Sun Ray machine you would have
>> an idea of just how cluttered /tmp can get with hundreds of users all
>> using the same
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Peter Tribble" wrote:
>
>> I regard this as unsafe and undesirable *as a default*. It clutters up
>> /tmp with unnecessary directories, wastes memory and involves
>> extra code at login. I have no problem with administrators or
>> users doing it if they want, but I see n
Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
>> Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
Yeah, you'll notice that if you try to su to root and run installers
that run pkgadd internally. I use this method, and the StarOffice 8
installer failed quite mysteriously until I realized it was just an
instance of
On 11/6/06, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> While it isn't particularly necessary on machines with small numbers of
> users if you have every logged into a big Sun Ray machine you would have
> an idea of just how cluttered /tmp can get with hundreds of users all
> using the same /tmp.
On such machines,
>I disagree. The flat layout in /tmp for all temporary files of all users
>is very very annoying for both admins and users. I doubt mode 1777 is
>"insecure" (yes, you can always craft a case where it goes wrong...).
Why? I hard ever look in /tmp.
OTOH, GNOME already dumps 3 or four temporary di
Peter Tribble wrote:
> I regard this as unsafe and undesirable *as a default*. It clutters up
> /tmp with unnecessary directories, wastes memory and involves
> extra code at login. I have no problem with administrators or
> users doing it if they want, but I see no advantage to having it as
> the d
"Peter Tribble" wrote:
> I regard this as unsafe and undesirable *as a default*. It clutters up
> /tmp with unnecessary directories, wastes memory and involves
> extra code at login. I have no problem with administrators or
> users doing it if they want, but I see no advantage to having it as
> t
>Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
>>
>> >Yeah, you'll notice that if you try to su to root and run installers
>> >that run pkgadd internally. I use this method, and the StarOffice 8
>> >installer failed quite mysteriously until I realized it was just an
>> >instance of that problem and reset TMPDIR
what did the mkdir code look like again?
what will it do for user "foo" when /tmp/foo exists and is owned by user "bar"?
will +t be part of the mode?
-- Glenn Fowler -- AT&T Research, Florham Park NJ --
