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

Re: UMASK 002 or 022?

On 2017-06-30 12:05, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:56:37AM -0400, gwmfms6@openmailbox.org wrote:
Ultimately, it wouldn't be as big a deal if it was possible to change the
default umask for the gnome-session in Debian Stretch.

the fact that it's impossible for you, doesnt mean it's impossible for everyone.

sorry, but this had to be said, you are repeating this nonsense. if you need help changing this, try debian-user@lists.debian.org or get paid support.

this list is for the development of debian, thanks.

When the average user cannot change the umask, it becomes a higher priority that the default umask reflect everyday usage (which is what this thread is about--the development of debian and discussing why debian still uses a default whose rationale has arguably long past). The statement you disparage has bearing on the discussion of the default as the discussion is now of more concern considering things like this crop up.

Since you brought the issue up: other debian lists provided no help in finding a workaround. I don't see you volunteering any info on how to workaround the problem. So how do I know it's not impossible? I've spoken with another developer elsewhere and he didn't know a fix. But the statement you disparage was not asking for a workaround but was a comment on the larger user base not having a mechanism for effecting this change.

I don't feel your comments were warranted or helpful. The statement you disparage is not "nonsense" for the average debian user. I imagine you are much more skilled with computers than the average user. I don't want my statements to upset or misrepresent and did not intend this. But having input from someone who is not a developer per se can be helpful and informative to discussions like this.

It strikes me that the community does not care about this issue, that the "old" way of doing it is the preferred way even though its original rationale has long since passed and is no longer relevant. And apparently at least some view me as not knowledgeable enough to be discussing this topic with you in this forum considering I do not know how to work around the problem myself (but even if I did that would still not address the larger subject of this thread).

So signing off. I'll leave my previous emails for the record in the hope that they are given consideration by the community. I do appreciate having the opportunity to be heard and the feedback received.

Reply to: