Re: UMASK 002 or 022?
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:41:22PM -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On 2017-06-30 12:05, Holger Levsen wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:56:37AM -0400, email@example.com
> >>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 firstname.lastname@example.org or get paid
> >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
> 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