user private groups and a src group
> Wayne Schlitt wrote:
> > The one thing that I am really concerned about is whether Linux (and
> > Debian in particular) can support lots of different groups. I seem to
> > remember problems about a year ago with some fixed sized tables. If
> > you implement this, you should probably make sure that Debian runs ok
> > with say, 400-1000 groups.
>
> I wasn't aware of this. Can you remember any of the details ?
>
If I remember correctly, the problem was when one person was in too
many groups (only a fixed number was recognized), so or something.
A couple of months ago, there were some changed to the shadow password
file that made things almost unusable for large numbers of users.
The point isn't that this is something that I think should kill the
idea. The point is that it is something that I think is "unusual"
enough that we should check for problems before we implement it.
On another subject, I have seen several people say that they would
really prefer the sgid directory over mounting with BSD semantics, and
several people who have said just the opposite. It doesn't look like
there is a clear consensus in this area. It also appears that peoples
opinions are strong enough that just flipping a coin won't work too
well.
I think we really need to question the premise that this change needs
to be done at all. It is my understanding that the problem that this
would solve is when you have lots of people working in the same
directory tree. I guess I don't see that happening much for the
typical debian user. I also don't see that it is going to be that
hard for people to customize their environment in those cases that
there are lots of people working in the same tree.
Maybe I am way off base on all of this. What exactly was the goal of
this? What were the choices? I am embarassed to admit it, but I
deleted the original messages that started this thread... As usual
with this type of thing, we have spent a lot of time picking minor
holes in each others articles without looking at the whole.
-wayne
Reply to: