Re: [users] Re: Why can't I?
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 01:03:57PM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote:
| On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 12:07:33PM -0400, D-Man wrote:
| > It seems natural to me that my home dir is my own private property.
| > Kind of like having your own room or a clubhouse as a kid, with a sign
| > "Keep Out" on the door. Making it world readable seems like leaving
| > the door open, then wondering why someone is able to snoop about ;-).
| Yeah, but kids have to put their own "Keep Out" signs up. They
| don't come by default with the door.
| > I don't mean that unix in general is insecure, but that in this
| > particular aspect it seems to be.
| I still fail to see how it is insecure. Different than what you, personally,
| might expect, but individuals' expectations are not the ideal standard on
| which to judge security.
| > I wasn't really complaining, just curious. I am certain that there is
| > some history buried in here, like a great deal of other features in
| > Unix.
| Even outside of the Open Source/Free Software circles, *nix culture has, IMO,
| always seemed very oriented towards sharing and collaboration. It seems
| natural to me, then, that home directories would traditionally have
| permissions set such that their contents can be shared and collaborated upon.
| It just seems a lot more reasonable to me for the default to be that most
| things are open, but you can create hidden areas rather then for everything
| to be hidden and no easy way to expose a small part of it without also
| revealing everything else.
Well, public_html is very open and shared, yet my home dir still isn't
world readable. I have no argument against world executable -- that
is what allows people to get to an open subdirectory (like
public_html) for the sharing and collaboration.