On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 04:32:51PM +0000, Lars O. Grobe wrote: > > I have >1,000 users and don't have difficulty with my UID not having write access to their > > directory, if needed `sudo -u <user> bash` does the trick nicely. > > <g> so (a) you are the only administrator or (b) have others willing to work on an unix system. > Here we have one linux-admin and a group of service-admins who are not very interested in the > server, but specialised in plotting, printing, scanning... and use either macs or nt-pcs. The > system is run by students of architecture, and those don't all want to learn unix... So I must > give a fileserver that they can use as if working on their local drive. sigh, `don't want to learn'... anyway it sounds to me what you need is ACLs, which are not supported in GNU/Linux but there is patches available, maybe you should look into that. (note i don't know how stable the ACL project is, but from what i have been reading lately it sounds like its making good progress) you might be able to do what you need via samba, which has several options for forcing the group (but of course not user) but i don't know what to tell you about netatalk, a quick glance does not reveal much configurabiity of permission translation in afpd. and of course a samba solution won't work in the normal unix shell but it sounds like your users don't touch that anyway. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgpmEhCcWA1Mb.pgp
Description: PGP signature