Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific]
Disclaimer: I have no idea what the subject of this thread is about.
On Mon 21 Nov 2016 at 15:11:21 (+0100), tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 08:34:42AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 01:26:45PM +0000, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> > > Well, when the OP writes "sane" he does not mean sane the program, but
> > > rather that he wants reasonable or rational file permissions (see
> > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sane#Adjective ).
> >
> > I think, unfortunately, he actually means "I know what I want, and you
> > should know what I want, and I shouldn't have to explicitly say what
> > I wants, because everyone has the same background and experiences that
> > I do, so you all know what I mean without my saying it, right?"
>
> Well paraphrased, albeit a bit biased. I think the discussion has the
> potential to calibrate "our" expectations too.
Well, I know what my expectations are: to see an idiosyncratic problem
posed (it SHALL do this and that) and then see people slapped down for
not sticking to the precise conditions spelled out or implied by the OP,
should they make a suggestion that is probably more useful to others
having a similar (but not absolutely identical) problem.
The usefulness of many suggestions is limited, of course, by the OPs
insistence that a horse and cart is driven through the unix security
model merely because the OP never connects anything to the internet
(which is insane).
> > After reading other responses in this massive thread, I come to a few
> > conclusions:
> >
> > 1) He wants auto-mounting of the inserted media, in the manner of Microsoft
> > Windows. I don't know how he expects to handle unmounting.
As the OP always declares a desire to learn more, then it might be
appropriate to suggest writing a script running under root which
watches for any /dev/sd* devices to pop up, creates mount points,
appends lines to /etc/fstab (umask = 0, of course) and mounts them.
The script could sleep and loop or be run under cron.
> I guess the way (Win)DOS has been doing since times immemorial: pull the
> thing out and cope with the eventual corruption (yeah, I know Windows
> has had a "safe eject" functionality for quite a while, but: how much
> are people using it? and... the cultural roots hadn't it). But most DEs
> have a button to "eject" the media (which really means unmount: now an
> USB socket with a mechanical ejector would be really cool :-)
One could always reboot or, in the OP's case, reinstall Debian :)
> > 2) Apparently many Linux desktop environments offer this service, although
> > nobody currently responding to this thread knows how they do this.
> > It's voodoo.
>
> Well: udisks was mentioned, and also pmount. Slowly we're getting the
> pieces together. But you're right: DEs are (from my POV) horribly
> inscrutable. That's one of the reasons I avoid them.
>
> Sometimes I've to fix something for a customer (my most important customer
> being my SO), and I'm invariably horrified at the Rube Goldberg quality
> of those things. More frustrating is, it seems to be difficult to find
> somebody who can point you to a rough sketch on how things work. But yes, YMMV.
>
> > 3) My own previous response, coming from a no-desktop-environment viewpoint,
> > was premature. Everything I said was correct only in my own subset
> > of the Debian world, where I use things that I understand and not
> > voodoo desktop environments that nobody understands.
>
> Yep. Seems we are on the same page there. Still I want to help users, even
> those using voodoo, whithin my possibilities.
I'm not sure why the OP would want DE solutions. If you want to learn
how to troubleshoot car engines, you start with an old car, not with
one where about the only thing you can do when you lift the bonnet is
find that there's just room to plug into the computer diagnostic
socket (if that's where they go).
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: