[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: