Re: CD-RW Group, is "generic" always a CD Burner??? (Re: Bug#123550: perms: generic should be set)
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:25, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 December 2001 17:22, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> > Russell> Also I believe that in most cases the authority needed to
> > Russell> burn a CD is different to that needed to read a CD.
> > Russell> Therefore the cdrom group would not be appropriate.
> > Russell> Maybe we need a cdrw group?
> >
> > I'll second that suggestion. It seems appropriate to me. Can we
> > allocate another group?
>
> Are you sure about that? I think the point is that it is your own stuff
> that goes into the cdrom, and whether you write to it doesn't make that
> much of a difference. If it where that way, we could as well have need for
> a group for read-only floppy-access.
> Perhaps there is a case I oversee where it makes sense, can you give one?
In the majority of cases CD writing is a write-once event. So giving someone
write access to CDs gives them the ability to deny you access to a CD that
you put in the drive thus costing you money, while the main alternative use
of CD drives (read-only media) can only be read from and mounted read-only.
This is quite different from floppy access where costs can't be incurred and
where the typical use involves read-write access.
Also there are not different device files for floppies (the fd0u1440 and
fd0u720 effectively are the same thing). While the generic SCSI device is
quite different from a regular CD device.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: